AECOM: Securities Class Action Remains Pending----------------------------------------------As disclosed in AECOM's prior periodic reports, in 2005 and 2006AECOM's Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd ("AECOMAustralia"), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a tolledmotorway tunnel project in Australia that resulted in two separatelender lawsuits filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia in theFederal Court of Australia by RCM Services and Portigon AG. Inaddition, a separate securities class action lawsuit was alsofiled in 2012 against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court ofAustralia.

On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia settled the two lender lawsuitswith RCM Services and Portigon AG for an amount that is notexpected to have a material impact to the financial results ofAECOM. The settlement does not include the securities classaction lawsuit which remains pending, AECOM said in its Form 8-KReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July10, 2015.

Anna M. Sanzone-Ortiz sued Aetna Health of California and itscorporate, on her own behalf and for her minor son.

She claims that Applied Behavioral Analysis is "the only validatedtreatment for people with autism. The treatment approach began inthe 1950s. More than 550 peer-reviewed studies have demonstratedthe effectiveness of ABA treatment for people with autism. ABA isendorsed by, among others, the U.S. Surgeon General, the NationalStandards Project, and the National Professional DevelopmentCenter on Autism."

Aetna capped her policy benefits at 20 hours of treatment per weekthough her son's treatment provider recommended 26 hours a week,Sanzone says in the complaint.

She calls this limitation without regard for medical necessityillegal under California and federal laws.

After Aetna denied her appeal, Sanzone appealed to the CaliforniaDepartment of Managed Health Care in April, which increased herson's weekly coverage to 25 hours, Sanzone says.

She claims that Aetna's cap has no support in literature thatvalidates ABA treatment, which typically finds 30 hours a week theminimum time needed to help patients. It also violates the federalMental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act provisions of ERISAby having a separate treatment limitation applicable only inregard to mental health, according to the complaint.

The 13-page lawsuit does not estimate the size of the prospectiveclass.

ABA is "the process of systematically applying interventions basedupon the principles of learning theory to improve sociallysignificant behaviors and to demonstrate that the interventionsemployed are responsible for the improvement in behavior," thecomplaint states, quoting the definition without citing a source.

Aetna employs almost 50,000 people and medically insures more than23 million people, according to the complaint.

Sanzone is represented by Jordan Lewis, with Kelly Uustal, of FortLauderdale, and Teresa Renaker, with Renaker Hasselman of SanFrancisco, who could not reached for comment. Aetna did notrespond to a request for comment.

Autism, now called autism spectrum disorder, is a developmentaldisorder that impairs the ability to communicate and interact. Itmay include repetitive behaviors, though it manifests itself in anextremely wide variety of ways, hence the name spectrum.

Many autistic people are high functioning, such as Temple Grandin,a specialist in animal behavior who designs humane slaughterhousesand has written several best-selling books. A recent developmentis an autistic rights movement, which prefers the condition not becalled a disorder at all, but one of many ways of being human.

AGRO-JAL FARMING: Sued By Former Workers for Labor Violations-------------------------------------------------------------Jono Kinkade, writing for New Times, reported that a prominentSanta Maria Valley farming family is facing a class-action lawsuitfiled by former employees for allegedly violating several laborlaws.

The complaint alleges that the agricultural businesses Agro-JalFarming Enterprises Inc., Agro-Jal Farms Inc., Paloma PackingInc., and the companies' owners Abel Maldonado Sr., Abel MaldonadoJr., and Frank Maldonado, violated several California labor lawsregulating wages, working hours, and working conditions. Thelawsuit was filed by Cipriano Ponce, employed by the defendantsfrom 1984 to 2014, and Carlos Faria, employed by the defendantsfrom 2008 to 2010.

"Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered injury and pecuniary[monetary] loss as a result of Defendants' failure to comply withlabor law," according to the complaint filed July 15 in the SanLuis Obispo County Superior Court. Ponce and Faria worked for thedefendants in both SLO and Santa Barbara counties. The Maldonados'operations are based in Santa Maria.

The complaint alleges that employees were required to report tothe company offices and then go to work, but were only paid forthe time they actually worked, rather than all hours they were onthe clock.

All in all, "plaintiffs worked approximately 13 hours per day, sixdays a week and six hours on the seventh day."

The complaint also alleges that workers weren't given appropriatebreak and meal periods, were denied overtime and double time, andweren't reimbursed for work-related expenses such as mileage, gas,tools, and equipment.

A class-action lawsuit is appropriate, the complaint argues,"because defendants have implemented a scheme that is generallyapplicable to the plaintiff class."

Allen Hutkin, the San Luis Obispo-based labor law attorneyrepresenting Ponce and Faria told New Times that they believethese practices harmed hundreds of employees, primarily fieldworkers.

The California Labor Workforce Development Agency will review thecomplaint, and if it declines to pursue the matter, Hutkin and hisclients will continue the matter in court.

Frank Maldonado, president of Agro-Jal, couldn't be reached forcomment.

The Maldonados are a well-known agricultural family in the SantaMaria Valley, in part because of the political career of Abel Jr.He began as a Santa Maria City Council member before becoming thecity's mayor, and was then elected to the California Assembly andthe state Senate. In 2009, he was appointed by then-Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger to fill a vacant Lt. Governor seat. Abel Jr.subsequently lost the seat in a failed 2010 re-election bid toGavin Newsom. Maldonado also unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep.Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) in 2012.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Attard" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing---------------------------------------------------------------Alexia Attard, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United ContinentalHoldings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03197-DWF-BRT (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants'alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare inthe United States.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies inthe United States.

AMERICAN GREETINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Smith"---------------------------------------------------------------American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the court has held apreliminary approval hearing of the settlement in the case, AlSmith et al. v. American Greetings Corporation.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixtureinstallation crew members for special projects, individually andon behalf of those similarly situated, filed a putative classaction lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California, SanFrancisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violatedcertain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Californialaw, including the California Labor Code and Industrial WelfareCommission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes,plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and specialdamages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed uponwages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutorypenalties (including penalties under the California Labor CodePrivate Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest). In addition,plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporationacquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfaircompetition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs andthe proposed classes.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaintto add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failureto provide meal periods in violation of California Law and onDecember 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newlyadded claims.

On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principlethat, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve theclaims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes theyseek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensivenegotiations and a private mediation, which was finalized andmemorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action SettlementAgreement signed March 30, 2015.

The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $4.0million to pay claims from current and former employees who workedat least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certainof its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position inCalifornia between June 4, 2010 and the date of the Court'spreliminary approval of the settlement.

On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for PreliminaryApproval of Class Action Settlement. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffsfiled their Third Amended Complaint to which American GreetingsCorporation filed its answer on May 19, 2015.

On April 30, 2015, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing.If the settlement is preliminarily approved, notice and claimforms will be mailed to class members and class members will havean opportunity to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement,and/or to object to the settlement.

As part of a Preliminary Approval Order, the Court will set aFinal Approval Hearing to occur after the notice process, at whichpoint the Court will consider the notice process and results, anyobjections, and other relevant information. The Court will thendecide whether to finally approve the class settlement. If thesettlement is finally approved, American Greetings will fund thesettlement within twenty (20) days after passage of all appealperiods. Thereafter, the settlement funds will be disbursed asprovided in the settlement agreement and the Court's orders.

AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces "Michael Ackerman" Class Action---------------------------------------------------------American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the Company facesMichael Ackerman v. American Greetings Corporation, et al.

On March 6, 2015, plaintiff Michael Ackerman, individually and onbehalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey allegingviolation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") byAmerican Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, AG Interactive,Inc. The plaintiff claims that defendants (1) sent plaintiff anunsolicited text message notifying plaintiff that he had receivedan ecard; and (2) knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA,which prohibits unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephonecalls, including faxes and text messages, sent to cellulartelephones. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class based onunsolicited text messages sent by defendants during the periodFebruary 8, 2011 through February 8, 2015. The plaintiff seeksdamages in the statutory amount of $500 for each and everyviolation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each and every willfulviolation of the TCPA. The Corporation believes the plaintiff'sallegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intends todefend the action vigorously.

With respect to the Ackerman case, management is unable toestimate a range of reasonably possible losses as (i) theaggregate damages have not been specified, (ii) the proceeding isin the early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcomeof anticipated motions, and/or (iv) there are significant factualissues to be resolved. However, management does not believe, basedon currently available information, that the outcome of thisproceeding will have a material adverse effect on theCorporation's business, consolidated financial position or resultsof operations, although the outcome could be material to theCorporation's operating results for any particular period,depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

APEX ASSET: Faces "Vieira" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation------------------------------------------------------------Stephanie Vieira, on hehalf of herself and those similarlysituated v. Apex Asset Management, LLC and John Doe 1 to 10, CaseNo. 2:15-cv-05966-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act.

ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation------------------------------------------------------------Larry Kahn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv. ARS National Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,Case No. 2:15-cv-05967-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), isbrought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act.

ASCENA RETAIL: Records $50MM Class Action-Related Pre-Tax Charge----------------------------------------------------------------Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10,2015, that the Company expects to record a pre-tax charge ofapproximately $50 million related to class action lawsuit.

The Company is a party to lawsuits related to pricing practices atits Justice reporting unit. In early July 2015, based on recentdevelopments in the cases, the Company determined that it isrequired to record a reserve for the future settlement of theCases in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards BoardAccounting Standards Codification Topic 450-20-25. As a result,the Company currently expects to record a pre-tax charge ofapproximately $50 million during the fourth quarter of its fiscalyear ending July 25, 2015.

AUDIOEYE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Shareholder Case------------------------------------------------------------AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yetappointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel in the shareholderclass action lawsuits.

"In April 2015, two purported shareholder class action lawsuitswere filed against us and our officer Nathaniel Bradley and formerofficer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Arizona," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allegevarious causes of action against the defendants arising from ourannouncement that our previously issued financial results for thefirst three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourthquarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer berelied upon. The complaints seek, among other relief,compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'fees."

"The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel,and we have not yet responded to the complaints. We believe thatthe lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, ourmanagement currently cannot assess the probability of losses, orreasonably estimate the range of losses, related to thesematters."

Avalanche, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses ondiscovering and developing novel gene therapies for the treatmentof ophthalmic diseases based on its Ocular BioFactory platform.The Company's lead product candidate is AVA-101, which wasundergoing a Phase 2a trial for the treatment of wet age-relatedmacular degeneration during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Avalanche andcertain of its executive officers made a series of materiallyfalse and/or misleading statements to investors, and failed todisclose that the Phase 2a study of AVA-101 had not been designedto show statistical significance for the study's secondaryendpoints between the active and control study groups.

After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued apress release entitled "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. AnnouncesPositive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-RelatedMacular Degeneration." That press release disclosed that thePhase 2a study was significantly more limited than investors werepreviously lead to believe.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share,or over 56%, to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015,thereby damaging investors.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questionsconcerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect tothese matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. The complaint in this action was not filedby Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For additional informationabout the lawsuit, or to request information about the action,please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/avalanche-biotechnologies-inc.

Members of the class may,no later than September 8, 2015, petitionthe Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. Alead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of allclass members in directing the litigation. In order to beappointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that theclass member's claim is typical of the claims of other classmembers, and that the class member will adequately represent theclass in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is notaffected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a leadplaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the courtto serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or maychoose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in stateand federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, andhas recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional andindividual investors from the United States and around the world.The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against thegovernment and share in the recovery of government dollars). Formore information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or foradditional information about participating in this action, pleasevisit www.ktmc.com

BAC HOME: 6th Circ. Rejects Class Action Challenge--------------------------------------------------Kentucky Business Entity Law reported that in the decisionauthored by Judge Rogers, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appealsrejected a challenge to the MERS system and the assertion thatit's operation violated Kentucky law with respect to recordingmortgage assignments.

The Sixth Circuit held that, while the assignment of a mortgagemay, under Kentucky law, be required to be of record with thecounty clerk, there is no parallel requirement for recordingassignments of the related promissory notes. Higgins v. BAC HomeLoan Servicing, LP, __F.3d __, 2015 WL 4289804 (6th Cir. July 16,2015).

Under the MERS system, when a home is financed through a note andmortgage, the lender on the note is identified as the issuingbank. In turn, the mortgagee is identified as MERS, as nominee ofthe mortgagee and its successors. When in turn the note and therelated mortgage are sold or resold, such as takes place duringsecuritization, no further recordation is made with the countyclerk. Rather, the note is transferred to the purchaser thereof,and assuming they are a member of the MERS system the relatedinterest in the mortgage is assigned to the acquirers benefit.

Or at least that is how it was intended to operate. The plaintiffsin this case alleged that the MERS system was improper in that itviolated KRS Section 382.360(3) which requires that "When amortgage is assigned to another person, the assignation will filethe assignment for recording with the county clerk within thirty(30) days of the assignment." Certain penalties are imposed uponan assignee who fails to make this required recording. In that theassignment in the MERS system of the promissory notes carried withit an interest in the related mortgage, the plaintiffs positedthat damages were owing because the transfers of those interestsin the mortgages were never recorded with the county clerk.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed bythe banks and other lending institutions named as defendants,finding, inter alia, that the transfer of the notes which weresecured by the mortgages in effect constituted an assignment ofthe underlying mortgage, and that assignment required a filingwith the County Clerk. The Sixth Circuit granted an interlocutoryappeal to that determination.

Coincidentally, the same day that the District Court (JudgeCaldwell) denied the motion for summary judgment, a near identicalchallenge to the MERS system was considered and rejected inEllington v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 13 F.Supp.3d723 (W. D. Ky. 2014) (Judge McKinley). Much of the Sixth Circuit'sanalysis in this case would "piggyback" on the Ellington decision.

The question came down to one of statutory interpretation. Parsingthe statute, the Sixth Circuit focused upon statutory distinctionsbetween the treatment of mortgage instruments and promissorynotes, particularly focusing on the fact that while assignment ofthe former must be recorded, recordation of assignments of thelatter are merely permissive. Further:

"Adopting plaintiffs' interpretation of the recording statuteswould also render the statutory scheme somewhat incoherent.Plaintiffs concede that their interpretation would mandaterecording of note assignments. But Kentucky's recording statutespointedly distinguish between mortgage assignments -- which mustbe recorded, see KRS 382.360(3) -- and note transfers -- for whichrecording is optional, see KRS 382.290(2). If every note transferoperated as a mortgage assignment, and every mortgage assignmentmust be recorded, then every note transfer would have to berecorded, albeit as a mortgage assignment. It would be strange forKentucky's legislature to require recording of note transfers asmortgage assignments while elsewhere in the same statutesproviding the note transfers need not be recorded. 2015 WL4289804,*4.

Ultimately:

In sum, KRS 382.360(3) applies to those instances in which atransferee fails to record a transfer of a mortgage deed. It doesnot require recording of transfers of promissory notes. Because itis undisputed that defendants transferred only promissory notesand did not fail to record any transfers of mortgage deeds,defendants did not violate KRS 382.360(3) and the district courtshould have dismissed plaintiffs' action on that basis.

BARE ELEGANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages----------------------------------------------------------Ember Knight, and Haley Hyden-Soffer, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated v. Bare Elegance Management, LLC,and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05854 (C.D. Cal., August 3,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payminimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor StandardAct.

Bare Elegance Management, LLC owns and operates an adultentertainment business located in Inglewood, California.

BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over False Almond Breeze Advertising-------------------------------------------------------Ed Cara, writing for Medical Daily, reported that a pair of bravecitizens are squaring off against Blue Diamond Growers, thelargest processor and marketer of almonds in the world (accordingto their company website) in civil court. The plaintiffs, TracyAlbert and Dimitrios Malaxianis, are claiming that Blue Diamond'salmond milk brand, Almond Breeze, has been fraudulentlyadvertising itself as primarily containing almonds, when inactuality, it only contains about two percent.

According to the amended complaint, available to the public,Albert and Malaxianis were avid almond milk lovers -- Albert evenresiding in California, where Blue Diamond helps produce asignificant amount of the almonds grown in the U.S. every year.However, they became shocked when they learned that their AlmondBreeze, according to nutritional information displayed by its UKcounterpart, only contained two percent real almond. No suchdisclosure exists on the U.S. side of the almond milk aisle.

"Defendant is using its website to lead distributors, grocerystores, restaurants, consumers and other buyers and resellers ofalmond milk in the United States to believe that their almond milkbranded products are primarily made from almonds," read theircomplaint. "Said information from Defendant's website has createda false perception amongst the public that Defendant's almond milklabeled products are premium products that are healthy for youbecause they are primarily made from almonds."

Regardless of the outcome, the civil case, filed in New Yorkbecause of Malaxianis's residency there, is coming at a time whenalmond milk has become incredibly popular. An article referencedby the complaint notes that sales of almond milk cleared over $700million, with Blue Diamond the top dog (the original suit alsonamed Whitewave Foods, which produces Silk, a brand that nowincludes almond milk). According to research they conductedonline, the average amount of almond that should be found inalmond milk is around 25 to 35 percent.

The two, fighting on behalf of themselves and "all other personsin the United States" who have ever purchased Almond Breeze, areclaiming the company has committed unfair and deceptive businesspractices, false advertising, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

It's tough to say whether their effort will bear any fruit(juice), but the debacle does seem fairly reminiscent of pastlabeling battles, such as sugary cereal advertisements thatclaimed health benefits and Coca Cola's attempt to market a juicedrink as filled with pomegranate and blueberry when it actuallyonly contained about 0.3 and 0.2 percent of each, respectively.

In the meantime, it's at least a piece of ammunition that you canthrow out in an argument about why you don't like almond milk.

BRASKEM SA: August 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline-------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredAmerican Depositary Receipts of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem")(NYSE:BAK) between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York.If you purchased or otherwise acquired Braskem ADRs between June1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, your rights may be affected by thisaction. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/braskem-bak or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email atjlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877)363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

On March 11, 2015, a report from the Sao Paulo newspaper Folha deS. Paolo implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surroundingPetroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras. The article alleges thatBraskem paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras between2006 and 2012 to acquire crude derivative contracts at cheaperprices, according to testimony made by former Petrobras executivePaulo Roberto Costa and self-confessed money launderer AlbertoYoussef.

If you suffered a loss in Braskem you have until August 31, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys haveextensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involvingfinancial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation insecurities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Priorresults do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Among the criteria required to certify a class action is that thepleadings must disclose a reasonable cause of action. While aproposed plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to show somefactual basis for each of the other certification requirements,the same is not required to prove the existence of a cause ofaction. Rather, a pleading will be found to disclose a cause ofaction unless it is plain and obvious that no such claim exists.

Federal Court Partially Certifies Class Action

In July 2014, the Federal Court certified in part a classproceeding for damages arising out of the loss by the Ministry ofHuman Resources and Skills Development Canada of a hard drivecontaining personal information of 583,000 student loanrecipients. Our post regarding the certification decision can befound here.

At the certification stage, the class action was allowed toproceed based on breach of contract and the tort of intrusion uponseclusion. The certification judge denied certification of theclaims for breach of confidence and negligence, finding, based ona "summary review of the evidence", that the plaintiff had notsuffered any compensable damages, and therefore negligence andbreach of confidence (both of which have damages as an essentialelement) could not be certified.

Allowing the Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal referred thematter back to the Federal Court to determine the common issues inthe class action in relation to the claims for negligence andbreach of confidence. The Federal Court of Appeal held that thecertification judge erred in evaluating the affidavit evidencefiled by the parties to determine the merits of the claims fornegligence and breach of confidence. The Court reinforced that atthe certification stage of class actions, the determination ofwhether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action is basedon an assumption that the facts as pleaded are true, not on areview of evidence adduced in support of the motion.

Condon serves as a reminder of the proper purpose of evidence oncertification motions, and reaffirms that the certification stageis not intended to be a test of the merits of a proposed classaction.

One farmer representing each of the western provinces are theplaintiffs in the case, which initially began in 2010, andincludes Peace Country farmer Nathan Macklin of Debolt.

"(The case) has changed somewhat due to the legal decisions thathave come down," Macklin explained. "The original lawsuit wasasking for a much larger amount in damages. It was claiming thatwe as farmers had a proprietary interest in the assets of the(CWB) and we own it."

The CWB is a marketing board for wheat and barley growers inwestern Canada which allowed farmers to remain in control of theirproduct until it hit end users overseas, Macklin explained. Priorto the government's changes, there were three major players; therailroads, the grain companies and the board which was controlledby the farmers.

"Now, there's two major players and 70,000 farmers who have nocontrol or bargaining capacity once they dump their grain in thepit at the grain company," he said.

The original class action sought to return the board to a single-desk mandate as well as $17 billion in compensation for when thefederal government took over the board.

"We were a little disappointed that the lower courts (in 2012)decided that the government was within its rights to basicallyconfiscate those assets and... that the CWB was their (government)property," he said.

"Unfortunately, the supreme court declined to hear our appeal ofthe lower court ruling on that issue. However, the lower court didallow a portion of our lawsuit, a smaller portion of our lawsuit,to proceed."

Macklin said it appears that there was a significant mismanagementof the board's pooled funds into the contingency fund and therestructuring costs during its as a single-desk mandatedoperation. According to Macklin, there's up to $720 million thatshould have been returned to farmers in the pool, 'deprivingfarmers of a lot of value that they are otherwise entitled to'.

"The financial statements of the CWB have not been released sincethe government took over the operation," said Macklin.

"We need to get a look at those books to actually figure out howmuch of that money was actually miss-allocated and to have sometransparency and some accountability on farmer's behalves over theactions that the government has taken through various means suchas citing commercial confidentiality of a private grain companyand things like that."

In terms of the amended class action, Macklin said they are in theprocess of certifying it, which he added will take a bit of time.Once the action is certified it can then move on to trial.

"We'll see if there's a different government in the meantime," hesaid. "What changes the election might bring to the strategy, I amnot sure but certainly, we're committed to ensuring that farmersreceive the full value of the money that they are entitled to...and we'll do the best to our ability with the resources we have toensure that that happens."

It's a bit disappointing that the case seems to have returned tosquare one and amended from the original case, Macklin admitted,but they knew it was an uphill battle.

"We feel we're fighting the good fight on behalf of farmers and wefeel that on this instance, the government is completely wrong andneeds to be challenged and held accountable," he said.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If an infant or child has been fed the products described above,discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiledfood may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting anddiarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The CanadianFood Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the publicthrough updated Food Recall Warnings.

CARMAX INC: California Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review---------------------------------------------------------------The California Supreme Court has denied CarMax, Inc.'s petitionfor review in the Fowler class action lawsuit, the Company said inits Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31,2015.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class actionlawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMaxAuto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two otherlawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto SuperstoresCalifornia, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto SuperstoresCalifornia, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure toprovide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees relatedto meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statementprovisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's LaborCode Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consistedof sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employeeswho worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, tothe present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of theclass claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.

On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to thefailure to comply with the itemized employee wage statementprovisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summaryadjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to payovertime to the sales consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the salesconsultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal andrest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to paywages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and restbreaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor CodePrivate Attorney General Act.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compelthe plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualbasis. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trialcourt's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ ofcertiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. OnFebruary 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court grantedCarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court ofAppeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court ofAppeal for further consideration. The California Court of Appealdetermined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private AttorneyGeneral Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remainingclaims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis.

CarMax appealed this decision on March 9, 2015 by filing apetition for review with the California Supreme Court. On April22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the petition forreview.

The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctiverelief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount orrange of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome inthis matter," the Company said.

The food recall warning issued on August 4, 2015 has been updatedto include additional allergens. This additional information wasidentified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)food safety investigation.

Casy Industries Ltd. is recalling Casy's Kwik brand Gluten-freeCorn Snax from the marketplace because they may contain hazelnut,almond, cashew and pistachio which are not declared on the label.People with an allergy to hazelnut, almond, cashew or pistachioshould not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to almond, hazelnut, cashew or pistachio,do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a seriousor life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported reaction associated with theconsumption of these products.

BackgroundThis recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The CFIA isconducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to therecall of other products. If other high-risk products arerecalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated FoodRecall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productsfrom the marketplace.

CATAMARAN CORP: Entered Into MOU With Class Action Plaintiffs-------------------------------------------------------------Catamaran Corporation, UnitedHealth Group and 1031387 B.C.Unlimited Liability Company have entered into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuitsproviding for the settlement of the litigation, Catamaran said inits Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 2, 2015.

On March 29, 2015, Catamaran (the "Company") entered into anArrangement Agreement (the "Arrangement Agreement") withUnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a corporation incorporated underthe laws of the State of Delaware, USA ("UnitedHealth Group"), and1031387 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company, an unlimited liabilitycompany incorporated under the laws of the Province of BritishColumbia, Canada, and a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealthGroup ("Purchaser").

The Arrangement Agreement provides, among other things, that, inaccordance with a Plan of Arrangement and the transactionscontemplated thereby, UnitedHealth Group will acquire, directly orindirectly, all of the issued and outstanding common shares of theCompany pursuant to a statutory "arrangement" (the "Arrangement")under Section 195 of the Business Corporations Act (Yukon),resulting in the Company becoming an indirect, wholly ownedsubsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

Four purported common shareholders of the Company filed fourputative class action complaints in the Circuit Court of CookCounty, Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of commonshareholders. Subject to court approval, the parties in all fourlawsuits have agreed to consolidate the lawsuits in their entiretyin the Cook County Circuit Court in the State of Illinois (the"State Litigation"). In addition, two purported commonshareholders of the Company filed putative class action complaintsin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, each on behalf of a purported class of commonshareholders (the "Federal Litigation" and, together with theState Litigation, the "Litigation").

On July 2, 2015, the Company, UnitedHealth Group and Purchaserentered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs inthe Litigation providing for the settlement of the Litigation (the"Memorandum of Understanding"). In the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, the Company agreed to make certain supplementaldisclosures to the definitive proxy circular and proxy statementof the Company dated June 8, 2015 relating to the Arrangement (the"Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement").

The Company believes that no additional disclosure is required tosupplement the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement under applicablelaws. However, to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay orotherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Arrangement,and to minimize the expense of defending the Litigation, theCompany has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to theProxy Circular and Proxy Statement. The supplemental disclosuresto the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement are set forth below. TheMemorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject tocompletion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to theplaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation ofsettlement. The settlement contemplated by the parties will besubject to customary conditions, including consummation of theArrangement, certification of the class, and court approvalfollowing notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event thatthe parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing willbe scheduled at which the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinoiswill consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of thesettlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the presidingcourt, such settlement will resolve and release all claims thatwere, or could have been, brought in any of the actionschallenging any aspect of the Arrangement, the ArrangementAgreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (butexcluding claims for dissent rights made by shareholders of theCompany in accordance with the Arrangement Agreement and therelated Plan of Arrangement), pursuant to terms that will bedisclosed to shareholders of the Company prior to final approvalof the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties willultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that theCircuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will approve the settlementeven if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If theCircuit Court of Cook County, Illinois does not approve thesettlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated by theMemorandum of Understanding, may be terminated.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets andcontact The Children's Place (Canada) LP for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact The Children's Placecustomer service toll-free at 1-877-827-7895, from 9 a.m. to 5p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit TheChildren's Place website and click on the 'Recall Information'link at the bottom of the page.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Has Conditional Certification---------------------------------------------------------------Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. said in an exhibit toits Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 10, 2015, that the court has granted theplaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class ofsystem administrators in the case, Strauch et al. Fair LaborStandards Act Class Action.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. ComputerSciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging thatCSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at anytime from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSCimproperly classified its system administrators as exempt from theFLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages. Plaintiffshave also asserted similar claims under state law. CSC's positionis that its system administrators have the job duties,responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and areproperly classified as exempt from overtime compensationrequirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied inFebruary 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting theplaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class ofsystem administrators. The Strauch putative class includes morethan 4,000 system administrators, of whom 1,865 are employed by usand the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts typicallyundertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit mayproceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Courtnoted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings andaffidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members aresimilarly situated, the class is conditionally certified.Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunityto opt in to the action. The second step of the classcertification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. Atthat point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the recordto determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude thatthe proposed class members are similarly situated. If it isdetermined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it isdetermined they are not, the class is decertified and only theindividual claims of the purported class representatives proceed.

CONDE NAST: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Information--------------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York against AdvanceMagazine Publishers, Inc., d/b/a Conde Nast ("Conde Nast"),alleging that the magazine publisher sells the personallyidentifiable information ("PII") of its customers to third-party"data miners" in violation of Michigan State law. Specifically,the complaint alleges that Conde Nast has violated Michigan'sVideo Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") prohibition against companiesdisclosing without permission any record or information concerninga Michigan customer's purchase of written materials, if the recordcontains PII. According to the complaint, Conde Nast sold listscontaining PII at a rate of approximately $180 per thousandsubscribers. The complaint seeks to certify a class of allMichigan residents who had their PII disclosed to third parties byConde Nast without consent.

Does Selling PII Without Customer Consent Violate Michigan Law?

Conde Naste Sued for Selling Personally Identifiable Information

According to the complaint, the named plaintiff is a Conde Nastmagazine subscriber. The plaintiff alleges that he was neverprovided with written notice that Conde Nast sells its customers'PII and failed to provide a means of opting-out from suchpractices. The complaint further alleges that "[c]onsumers cansign up for Conde Nast subscriptions through numerous mediaoutlets . . . . Regardless of how the consumer subscribes, CondeNast never requires the individual to read or agree to any termsof service, privacy policy, or information-sharing policy." Thispractice, according to the complaint, violates Michigan's VRPA.

The VRPA, passed in or about 1988, states in part that: "a person,or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the business ofselling at retail, renting, or lending books or other writtenmaterials . . . shall not disclose to any person, other than thecustomer, a record or information concerning the purchase . . . ofthose materials by a customer that indicates the identity of thecustomer." The complaint seeks to enjoin Conde Nast from violatingthat provision of the VRPA, as well as disgorgement of all profitsmade by Conde Nast from the sale of customer PII or $5,000.00 perclass member, whichever is greater. Conde Nast must respond to thecomplaint.

Protect Yourself

The class action complaint filed against Conde Nast alleges thatit sold customer PII without disclosing such practices in itsterms of service or privacy policy, and did not make aninformation sharing policy available to prospective and existingsubscribers. While laws regulating the sale of PII may vary fromstate to state, providing conspicuous disclosures and obtainingconsumer prior express informed consent before selling such datais always a must.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or if youhave been served with process concerning your data sharingpractices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call usat (212) 246-0900.

According to the suit, Charles Tipton was evacuated from his homearound 1 a.m. on July 2, shortly after the derailment. He was insight of the fire and inhaled smoke and fumes. He was unable toreturn home until after the evacuation was lifted and according tothe suit, missed a day of work.

Billy Tipton, according to the suit, was evacuated from his homearound 2 a.m. and also breathed in smoke and fumes, complaining ofwatery eyes and a burning sensation in his mouth and throat. Thesuit also says Travis and Elisabeth Pruett were also evacuatedfrom their homes for more than 24 hours.

The suit does not say whether Charles Tipton or Billy Tiptonsought medical help.

The suit alleges all four suffered property damages, aggravationand inconvenience, fear, anxiety and mental anguish and out-of-pocket expenses. The suit says Charles Tipton also lost income.

The plaintiffs are represented by five separate law firms,including Knoxville-based Hagood Moody Hodge and Kramer Rayson, aswell as Maryville-based Craig L. Garrett.

Another lawsuit was filed earlier by Kevin W. Shepherd naminghusband and wife Aaron and Kelli Johnson as plaintiffs. That suitalleges CSX was "negligent and caused a nuisance resulting inevacuation."

Around 5,000 people had to evacuate their homes for more than 24hours when a train car containing toxic chemical acrylonitrilederailed in the early morning hours of July 2. Residents wereallowed to return home in the afternoon of July 4, but concernscontinued about well water and the presence of the chemical in anearby creek.

DELCATH SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 19----------------------------------------------------------Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that the Courtgranted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of ClassAction Settlement and set a Final Approval Hearing for October 19,2015, in the case, In re Delcath Systems, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, United States District Court for the Southern Districtof New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116).

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed aputative class action complaint in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, captioned BryanGreen, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint wasfiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle that, ifapproved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claimsbrought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks torepresent. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fundof $8,500,000 in return for a release of all claims in thislitigation, which is not expected to result in any additionalexpense in the Company's financial statements.

On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff filed a Motionfor Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set aFinal Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to theCourt's Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will bemailed to class members and class members will have an opportunityto submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to objectto the settlement. At the Final Approval Hearing the Court willconsider the notice process and results, any objections, and otherrelevant information. The Court will then decide whether tofinally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finallyapproved, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided inthe settlement agreement and the Court's orders.

DELTA AIR: Sued by Atlanta Lawyer for Ticket Overpricing--------------------------------------------------------Judd Hickinbotham, writing for WSB, reported that an Atlantalawyer is the latest to file suit against several airlines,accusing them of colluding to keep ticket prices sky high.

The class-action suit filed by attorney David Bain lists Delta,American, Southwest, and United Airlines as defendants. He filedit on behalf of a Massachusetts traveler.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Georgia, says theairlines conspired to fix, raise and maintain ticket prices.A Delta spokesman, once again, denied the claims in a statementreleased.

The Department of Justice is looking into the accusations.Lawyers in other states have filed similar suits, with the goal ofa class-action case that would include millions of fliers. Theycould consolidate the suits.

DEUTSCHE BANK: Securities Class Suit Sent Back for Review---------------------------------------------------------Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that the 2nd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals sent a securities class action againstDeutsche Bank and several underwriters back to U.S. District JudgeDeborah Batts of Manhattan for reconsideration in light of theU.S. Supreme Court's March 2015 decision in Omnicare v. LaborersDistrict Council. Judge Batts had tossed the case in 2013, rulingthat under 2nd Circuit precedent in Fait v. Regions Financial,Deutsche Bank's estimation of its exposure to mortgage-backedsecurities in offering materials for a stock issue was an opinionthat could not give rise to securities fraud liability. AfterOmnicare, in which the Supreme Court set new rules for whenopinions are actionable, the Supreme Court remanded the DeutscheBank case to the 2nd Circuit, which, in turn, passed it to JudgeBatts.

The appeals court was apparently unpersuaded by the banks'argument that it should just reaffirm the case's dismissal becauseOmnicare is consistent with Fait. (As you may recall, the SupremeCourt took the Omnicare case to resolve a split between the 6thCircuit, which had said opinions can be actionable if they containfactual statements that turn out to have been false, and the 2ndCircuit, which said in Fait that defendants can only be liable ifthey didn't actually believe the opinion when they expressed it.)The 2nd Circuit seems to want to hear from trial judges before itweighs in on Omnicare and Fait; in May, it sent a class actionagainst ING Group to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of Manhattanafter the ING case, like the Deutsche Bank case, was remanded tothe 2nd Circuit by the Supreme Court.

The 2nd Circuit's remands made me curious about how much impactOmnicare has had so far in the lower courts. Obviously, these areearly days: The Supreme Court decision is just four months old,and according to Westlaw, it has been cited in only about 15decisions. That said, it appears Omnicare has benefited bothsecurities plaintiffs and defendants -- but only a little bit.

For plaintiffs, the good news is that trial judges are applyingOmnicare not just in Securities Act cases but also in classactions asserting fraud under the Exchange Act. In Omnicare, theSupreme Court opened the door to investor claims based oncorporate statements of opinion that neglect to mention keycontrary facts. Two trial judges in federal court, one in a NewJersey case against Merck and the other in Richmond, Virginia, ina class action against Genworth Financial, used the same frameworkto analyze defendants' fraudulent intent under Section 10(b) ofthe Exchange Act -- and both found scienter under the Omnicarestandard.

In another boon to plaintiffs, a Colorado federal judge ruled thatthe FDIC can go ahead with a mortgage-backed securities caseagainst Morgan Stanley, holding that the agency had shown factualunderpinnings of the bank's "opinions" were false, so, underOmnicare, "the general rule that statements of opinion are notactionable does not bar the FDIC's claims."

But as the Supreme Court anticipated in the Omnicare opinion,investors still face "no small task" to show defendants' opinionsare actionable. In a case against the Southeastern PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority, for instance, a federal judge inHarrisburg said Omnicare couldn't transform corporate puffery intofalsely stated opinions. A Massachusetts federal judge ruledinvestors suing Sarepta Therapeutics couldn't meet the Omnicarestandard, as did the 10th Circuit in affirming the dismissal of aclaim against an executive of Delta Petroleum.

In Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty reconsidered hisdismissal of a securities class action against Tremor Video afterOmnicare came out but said the Supreme Court opinion just"reaffirmed" his original conclusion that the defendants'statements of opinion were not actionable.

The most thorough examination of Omnicare's impact came from U.S.District Judge Alison Nathan in In re Bioscrip. After supplementalbriefing from both sides, Judge Nathan agreed that Omnicare seemedto call the 2nd Circuit's Fait standard into question, "to theextent Fait has been construed to mean that there is liability forlegal compliance opinions only in the context of statementssubjectively disbelieved when made, but not in instances where aspeaker's statement, although sincerely believed, failed to makeclear the factual basis for that statement."

She analyzed the Bioscrip defendants' allegedly false opinionsunder the Omnicare framework and found them to fit thehypothetical the Supreme Court posited, in which a company statesan "opinion" but fails to disclose important contrary information.Judge Nathan said investors could sue over the misstatement underOmnicare -- but she also held they could have sued even under the2nd Circuit's old Fait standard.

I said when the Omnicare decision came out that the Supreme Courtseemed to be tinkering at the margins of securities law, notmaking big changes. I've seen some commentary to the contrary, butso far, in these early cases, judges haven't given me much reasonto reassess my initial reaction.

The pencil cases have spring loaded compartments for scissors,tape, ruler and erasers.

The lid is held closed by two magnets. These magnets can becomeloose posing a perforation hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Disney Store has received any reports ofconsumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the productin Canada. Additionally, no consumer incidents or injuries relatedto the use of the product have been reported in the United States.

Approximately 16 units were sold in Canada and 300 units in theUnited States at Disney Store locations.

The recall cases were sold between June 3, 2015 and June 12, 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Disney Store USA, LLC Pasadena California UNITED STATES

Consumers should take the case away from children and return it toa Disney Store for a full refund.

For more information, call the Disney Store at 1-866-902-2798,8:30am to 5 pm PST Monday-Friday.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

DOTTY'S CASINO: Agreed to Pay $375K for Class Suit Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------Steve Law, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that the state'slargest lottery cafe chain has agreed to reimburse 700 of itscurrent and past employees for making them cover shortfalls in thetill at the end of their shifts.

Oregon Restaurant Services, while not acknowledging anywrongdoing, agreed to reimburse the employees for 100 percent ofthe money they paid out, plus 9 percent annual interest. Some alsoreceived additional penalties. The minimum payment for each memberof the class is $100.

"We're just happy to see that a mutually agreeable resolution wasreached and we're happy that everybody can move on with theirlives and their business," says Will Rasmusssen, an attorney atPortland's Miller Nash law firm who represents Oregon RestaurantServices.

Jeff Chicoine, a Miller Nash colleague who also represents OregonRestaurant Services, previously maintained the company did nothingillegal, because it didn't deduct the payments from workers' pay.However, he said the company changed its policy in 2011 after alawsuit was filed by Breed on behalf of former employee PatrickBurns.

Burns, who won $8,500 in an out-of-court settlement that precededBreed's class-action filing, said he would typically handle $8,500to $13,500 in cash each day, He would unload money from the sixOregon State Lottery machines, pay prize money to winners, andsell alcohol, food, keno and scratch tickets and lots of cartonsof cigarettes.

"Anyone handling cash, you're human, you're going to make amistake one way or another," he said.

Burns said he didn't mind reimbursing the till for smallshortfalls, but complained when the company began charging him for$50 or $100 shortfalls which he didn't think were his fault.

Oregon Restaurant Services pioneered bare-bones cafes in Oregonthat derive their profits from hosting six state lotteryterminals. Dotty's and similar outlets offer low-price cigarettes,food and alcohol, to lure gamblers and comply with the OregonState Lottery requirement that they collect more than half theirgross revenues -- not profits -- from non-gambling business. Ifthey don't meet that threshold, the state maintains, they'd runafoul of the Oregon Constitution's ban on non-tribal casinos.

Burns said he'd sometimes sell $1,000 worth of cigarettes per day,including to other retailers who'd then take the cartons to theirstores and mark up the prices.

Oregon Restaurant Services also is the lead company in creating"Lottery Row," a casino-style complex of small cafes and bars in aJantzen Beach strip retail center.

Chicoine, who represented Oregon Restaurant Services in thedispute, was on vacation and could not be reached for comment onthe class-action settlement.

Earlier he argued that Dotty's employees were earning minimum wagebecause they also get tips. However, tips don't count againstOregon's minimum wage, now set at $9.25 an hour, under state law.

It took a couple years for the courts to certify the class ofemployees entitled to benefits under the class-action suit. Thatoccurred several months ago.

"We went into settlement talks pretty soon after we got the classcertified," Breed says. In the settlement talks, he agreed tolower the penalty payments class members would get, which couldhave been up to 30 days' pay. That might have dragged the case onseveral more years, Breed says, and the longer cases drag on inclass-action suits, the fewer people get reimbursed.

"To me, we accomplished everything we set out to," Breed says.

The final settlement was sealed in May and he began doling outpayments to employees.

His law firm still is holding a trust fund with nearly $100,000.That money is due to class members who haven't responded to hiscommunications or moved and he has no new contact information.Eligible employees must have worked for one or more of OregonRestaurant Services' 40 or so lottery outlets sometime betweenOct. 1, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2013. Workers who want to get theirpayments are encouraged to contact Breed at 503-226-1403.

Any money that's left over after November will go to a nonprofit,the Oregon Council on Problem Gambling.

"That actually was suggested by Dotty's," Breed says. "I didn'thave any problem with that. It's connected to the business thatthey do."

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Periodissued materially false and misleading statements to investorsand/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's senior officialswere in non-compliance with the Company's corporate governancedirectives and Code of Ethics; (2) as a result, the Company wassubject to investigation and disciplinary action by variousgovernmental and regulatory authorities; (3) the Company'sfinancial statements were materially false and misleading as theycontained direct references to the Company's Code of Ethics, andstatements regarding its compliance with regulations and internalgovernance policies; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal andfinancial controls; (5) the SOX certifications signed byEletrobras' senior management were materially false and misleadingas senior management was aware of "any fraud, whether or notmaterial"; and (6), as a result of the foregoing, the Company'sfinancial statements were materially false and misleading at allrelevant times. When the true details entered the market, thelawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanSeptember 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go tohttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-665.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitivemerger agreement with ETP, purported Partnership unitholders filedlawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas assertingclaims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purportedPartnership unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalfof the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit onbehalf of the Partnership in the 162nd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names asdefendants the General Partner, the members of the GeneralPartner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominalparty, the Partnership. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) theGeneral Partner's directors breached duties to the Partnership andthe Partnership's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfairprocess and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) theGeneral Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of goodfaith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimedbreaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing thedefendants from closing the proposed transaction or an orderrescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. Theplaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, includingattorney's fees.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalfof the Partnership in the 134th Judicial District Court of DallasCounty, Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, andrelief sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to thosein the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalfof the Partnership in the 192nd Judicial District Court of DallasCounty, Texas (the "Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, andrelief sought in the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to thosein the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit").The allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar tothose in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does notallege any derivative claims and includes the Partnership as adefendant rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits oneof the General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was namedin the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that theGeneral Partner's directors breached their fiduciary duties to theunitholders by failing to maximize the value of the Partnership,failing to properly value the Partnership, and ignoring conflictsof interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' allegedbreach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the samerelief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit").The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuitare nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini filed an amended complaint assertingadditional claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit").The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuitare nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit").The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuitare nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuitare similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that theDieckman Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuitare similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Courtof Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeagerand Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned theconsolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the"Consolidated State Lawsuit").

On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Partnershipunitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of thePartnership's common unitholders in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas (the "CoopermanLawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in theCooperman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court forthe Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini,Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidatedlawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "ConsolidatedFederal Lawsuit").

On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Lawsuitfiled an Emergency Motion to Expedite Discovery. On April 9, 2015,by order of the Court, the parties submitted a joint submissionwherein defendants opposed plaintiffs request to expeditediscovery. On April 17, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motionto expedite discovery.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. The Partnershipcannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits thatmight be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expensethat will be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnershipand the other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defendvigorously against these and any other actions.

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. and National RepairProtection, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00463-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of makingunsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and toobtain redress for all the persons injured by their conduct.

Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. is a company that sells a varietyof consumer-related products and services for automobile dealersand manufacturers, credit unions, banks, and retailers.

ERIC CONN: Former clients to Get Help From Legal Aid Groups-----------------------------------------------------------Sheldon Compton, writing for Hazard- Herald, reported that withsome of the 1,500 former clients of Eric C. Conn receiving lettersthat their cases have been referred for hearings, the pressingissue has become finding legal representation for all of them.

According to Ned Pillersdorf, though, there is recourse for many.

The Prestonsburg attorney said earlier that Legal Aid inPrestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been pulling togethera list of those wishing to have a lawyer represent them during thehearings to come.

But their claims must be justified, Pillersdorf says.

"The way we have been addressing this is that Legal Aid inPrestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been assembling alist of those who desire representation," Pillersdorf said. "Feelfree to contact other counsel. Also, if your claim for benefits isnot justified, we will not assist you. Don't ask."

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has continued to insiston hearings, Pillersdorf has said. He has filed a motion for aclass action lawsuit on behalf of Conn's former clients who losttheir benefits for a time following an investigation in theStanville disability attorney for alleged fraud.

A conference has been scheduled in federal court on Aug. 10 in theclass action injunction motion asking that there be no hearingsuntil the SSA can certify that the hearing process will be fair,Pillersdorf said, adding that under their own regulations, itwould seem they are to held to certain standards for hearings.

"It's complicated, but we do not believe the SSA has the rightunder their own regulations to commence with 1,500 reevaluationhearings, when there is no evidence the recipients engaged in anywrongdoing," Pillersdorf said.

And the Prestonsburg attorney is not mincing words when it comesto his view of the SSA as it pertains to the needs of his clients.

"In my view they (SSA) are an arrogant bureaucracy who areindifferent to the pain and anguish they are causing in ourcommunities," he said.

The SSA has threatened, according to Pillersdorf, to file a motionto dismiss the class action but have been ordered to first respondto the motion for preliminary injunction before filing for adismissal.

Sheldon Compton is a staff writer at The Floyd County Times. Hecan be reached at (606) 886-8506.

EXECUTIVE FIGHT: Faces Class Suit After Lemon Creek Incident------------------------------------------------------------Shelby Thom, writing for CKNW News, reported that another class-action lawsuit has been filed against the company whose fueltanker truck overturned in Lemon Creek, spilling more than 30,000litres of jet fuel and prompting thousands of evacuations twoyears ago.

The company was hired by the province to supply fuel tohelicopters battling a wildfire in the Slocan Valley, before thedriver lost control and dumped his load into the creek- promptingthe health authority to evacuate nearby homes.

Ross alleges the fuel exposure burned his eyes, throat and nose,and he had difficulty breathing, as well as a headache.

He wants the class action certified to include his neighbours whoalso allegedly suffered personal injury.

None of those allegations have been proven in court.

EXPERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Data to Identity Thieves----------------------------------------------------------------Jennifer Abel, writing for Consumer Affairs, reported that it'sbeen almost two years since word first leaked out that the massivedata broker Experian had, through a subsidiary known as CourtVentures, allowed a Vietnamese identity thief to buy access todatabases containing the personal and confidential information onup to 5 out of every 6 American adults -- 200 million people inall.

The identity thief in question, Hieu Minh Ngo, was sentenced to 13years in prison.

Law suit cites negligence

A couple days later, on July 17, three plaintiffs filed a federalclass action suit against Experian in California, alleging thatthe company was negligent in allowing an identity thief to buyaccess to its data for nearly 10 months.

Security expert Brian Krebs (who first broke word of the Experianbreach in October 2013) announced the lawsuit. The 38-page suit,which is available as a .pdf here, seeks statutory damages foralleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, declaratoryand injunctive relief, and reimbursement of the plaintiffs' courtcosts and litigation expenses.

The suit also claims that "Experian refuses to notify the victimsof Ngo's identity fraud operation or provide them with protectioneven though Experian knows their identities, and its senior vicepresident promised Congress [that] Experian would 'make surethey're protected'."

Therefore, the plaintiffs have asked the court to force Experianto notify all consumers who were affected by Ngo's actions.They're also pushing for Experian to provide everyone who wasaffected with free credit monitoring services.

Incidentally, in American English, the phrase "make a federalcase" is a common idiomatic phrase used to indicate that somebodyis overreacting: "Dude, he didn't intend to spill your drink!There's no need to make a federal case out of this." But in othercontexts, it's not an idiom but a straightforward description, asin "Apparently you do need to make a federal case out of it, ifyou want Experian to notify the victims of its own negligence."

To join the EZCORP class action, go to the firm's website athttp://rosenlegal.com/cases-340.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or emailpkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on theclass action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period madefalse and misleading statements and failed to divulge materialinformation, including with respect to the Company's accounting ofGrupo Finmart's structured asset sales. Consequently, on July 17,2015, EZCORP announced that it will restate its financialstatements for fiscal year 2014 (including the interim periodsduring that year) and the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. Onthis news, shares of EZCORP fell $11.51 per share or over 24% toclose at $35.54 per share on July 17, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanSeptember 18, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative partyacting on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. If you wish to join the class action and recover yourlosses, go to the firm's website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-340.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.

EZCORP INC: Sept. 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline------------------------------------------------Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed inUnited States District Court for the Western District of Texas onbehalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stockof EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EZPW) betweenOctober 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, inclusive (the "ClassPeriod").

EZCORP shareholders may, no later than September 18, 2015, movethe Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If youpurchased shares of EZCORP and would like to learn more aboutthese claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have anyquestions concerning this announcement or your rights, contactRichard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or tosign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw.

EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locationsand branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to accessinstant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in theUnited States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Companyoffers these products through four primary channels: in-store,online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform.

On April 30, 2015, EZCORP announced a delay in its earningsrelease for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 due to an ongoingreview of the Company's Grupo Finmart loan portfolio. On thisnews, shares of EZCORP fell from $9.20 to close at $8.41,representing a decline of $0.79 per share, or 8.59%. Subsequently,on May 20, 2015, the Company announced it had received a notice ofnoncompliance with NASDAQ's listing requirements due to itsfailure to timely file its 10Q, causing the stock price to fall7.3% to close at $8.33 on May 21, 2015.

Then, on July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced it will restate itsfinancial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter offiscal 2015. The restatement pertains to six structured assetsales, pursuant to which a portion of the Grupo Finmart loanportfolio was sold to a special purpose trust (the "Asset Sales").Due to certain control rights that Grupo Finmart retained asservicer of the loans, the trusts should have been accounted foras "variable interest entities" and, thus, the Asset Sales shouldnot have been accounted for as sales. Approximately $40 million ingain will be eliminated. EZCORP also failed to adequatelyidentify out-of-payroll loans and to track the aging of non-performing loans. According to the Company, the foregoing issuesindicate material weaknesses in EZCORP's internal control overfinancial reporting and deficiencies in the Company's disclosurecontrols and procedures. On this news, shares of EZCORP fell from$6.72 to $6.48, representing a loss of $0.24 per share orapproximately 3.57%.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September18, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff ofthe class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that actson behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Inorder to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determinethat the class member's claim is typical of the claims of otherclass members, and that the class member will adequately representthe class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class membersmay together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share inany recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether ornot to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel inthis action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw. For more information about classaction cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas,LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.

EZCORP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representinginvestors nationwide, announces that a class action case allegingviolations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has beencommenced against EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: EZPW) and two of its officers, who are also members ofthe board of directors. The case, which is pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Texas, has beenbrought on behalf of investors who purchased EZCORP's securities(the "Class") between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015 (the"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted todisclose material information, including with respect to theCompany's accounting of Grupo Finmart's structured asset sales.As a result, on July 17, 2015, the Company announced that it wouldrestate its financial statements for fiscal 2014 (including theinterim periods within that year) and the first quarter of fiscal2015, and that the previously issued financial statements forthose periods should no longer be relied upon.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members.If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of EZCORP duringthe Class Period, you only have until September 18, 2015 to seekappointment as a lead plaintiff in this action. Your ability toshare in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decisionwhether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you have questions about the lawsuit, possess informationrelevant to this investigation, or seek information about any ofthe foregoing, please contact attorney Steven Harte, at (617) 398-5600 or email him at Steven@blockesq.com Block & Leviton is alsoexperienced at representing whistleblowers and encourages anyinsiders with information about the allegations to contact them.Confidentiality is assured.

EZCORP INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District of Texas against EZCORP, Inc.(NASDAQ: EZPW). The complaint alleges violations of federalsecurities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations ofissuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to themarket which had the effect of artificially inflating the marketprice during the Class Period, which is October 27, 2014 throughJuly 16, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all EZCORP, Inc.shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Periodand are therefore a member of the Class as described above. Youmay move the Court no later than, September 18, 2015 to serve as alead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the PrivateSecurities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information andparticipate in this or any other securities litigation, or shouldyou have any questions or concerns regarding this notice orpreservation of your rights, please contact:

FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Entered Into Class Action Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------FedEx Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2015, that on July2, 2015, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), awholly owned subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, entered into a classaction settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuitentitled Dean Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System,Inc., Case No. 3:05-CV-38-EMC (the "Lawsuit"), currently pendingin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia (the "District Court"). In this action, a class wascertified consisting of approximately 2,300 persons who (1)entered into an operating agreement with FedEx Ground betweenNovember 17, 2000 and October 15, 2007 to perform pick-up anddelivery services, (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis and(3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California.

Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independentcontractors and assert various claims on behalf of themselves andthe class, primarily arising under the California Labor Code andthe California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek torecover business expenses, deductions from compensation, unpaidovertime wages, penalties for late payment of wages, penaltiesunder the California Private Attorneys General Act and otherrelief. The seventeen named plaintiffs also assert a claim forfailure to provide meal and rest breaks under the California LaborCode.

Under the settlement agreement, FedEx Ground has agreed to pay$228 million to resolve the Lawsuit and obtain a release of claimsthat were asserted or could be asserted in the Lawsuit or that arerelated to or arise from the employment classification of theclass members. The release of claims includes alleged damagesincurred from November 17, 2000 through the date of preliminaryapproval by the District Court. Any attorneys' fees awarded by theDistrict Court and all costs of notice and claims administrationwill be paid from the $228 million settlement fund. Each classmember's settlement payment will be determined by a formula basedon the dates and duration of contracting with FedEx Ground, thehours and days of work, vehicles used and miles driven by thosevehicles and other relevant factors.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the DistrictCourt. If the District Court preliminarily approves thesettlement, the agreement provides for a period of time duringwhich class members will be notified of the settlement and givenan opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlementpayment, object to the settlement or do nothing. We expect thatthe District Court will schedule a Fairness Hearing to occur afterthe notice period, at which the parties will request finalapproval of the settlement and at which any objectors to thesettlement will be heard. If the District Court gives finalapproval to the settlement, the release will be effective as toall class members regardless of whether they filed a claim formand received a payment.

Certain vehicles equipped with a hinged left side rear door mayhave a condition where inadequate clearance between the rear brakelines and the lower fuel filler hose clamp may result in abrasionto one or both rear brake lines. This condition could cause brakefluid loss which could result in decreased brake line pressure,increased brake pedal travel and increased stopping distance,increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage toproperty. This condition could cause various warning lights toilluminate in the instrument panel of the vehicle such the red"BRAKE" telltale symbol; illumination of the Stabilitrak telltalesymbol; scrolling display of "Service Brake", "ServiceStabilitrak," and "Service Traction Control" messages in theDriver Information Centre (DIC); and audible alerts/chimes.Correction: Dealers will inspect the brake lines. If the clearanceis found to be below specification, the brake lines will bereplaced with a new part design that provides adequate clearance.

On certain vehicles, the side-impact sensor wire harness in thedriver-side front door may have been improperly routed. If thewire harness was improperly routed, the window regulator couldcontact the harness when the window is fully lowered and, overtime, chafe the harness insulation. If the regulator penetratesthe insulation, a short could occur in the side-impact sensorcircuit, which could prevent the driver-side roof-rail airbag fromdeploying during a crash, potentially increasing the risk ofinjury to the seat occupant. If this condition were present, thevehicles airbag warning light would illuminate for the duration ofthe ignition cycle. Correction: Dealers will inspect the sideimpact sensor wiring in the front left doors. If the condition ispresent, they will repair damaged wires, correct the cliporientation, and correct the wire routing.

GOLD CLUB: Arb Agreement Found Unconscionable---------------------------------------------Gina Passarella, wrriting for The Legal Intellegencer, reportedthat an arbitration agreement a stripper was allegedly told tosign right before her shift started was unconscionable because itbarred her ability to bring her wage-and-hour collective and classactions in the arbitration setting, a Pennsylvania federal judgehas ruled.

In determining whether the arbitration agreement signed byplaintiff Jessica Herzfeld allowed for class and collectivearbitration, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania had to rely on the thin amount of caselaw available since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit ruled in 2014 in Opalinski v. Robert Half Internationalthat district courts must decide if arbitration clauses allow forclass arbitration.

"Due to Opalinski's recent vintage, we have minimal guidance indeciding whether the 2013 agreement [Herzfeld signed] could beinterpreted to allow for collective FLSA or class arbitration,"Kearney said in Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor. "As the Supreme Courthas not as yet required the arbitration agreement to expresslyrecite an agreement to class arbitration, it is possible to findan implicit agreement to authorize class arbitration but such anagreement cannot be 'inferred solely from the fact of the parties'agreement to arbitrate.'"

Kearney found the agreement Herzfeld signed with the Gold Club inPhiladelphia did not expressly or implicitly show an agreement toallow for collective or class arbitration. The agreement refersonly to arbitration affecting "both parties," and does not mentionparties of any other type. Kearney found there was thus no meetingof the minds on a "monumental change" to the agreement such asallowing not just for individual arbitration but for classarbitration or collective arbitration. He said a simple mention inthe arbitration agreement of the American Arbitration Associationrules and regulations also does not expand the agreement toinclude class or collective actions.

After finding the arbitration agreement did not allow forHerzfeld's collective action, Kearney looked to whether it wasunconscionable.

"Courts have viewed the loss of a statutory right to a collectiveaction permissible, but only in the context of a contractualwaiver," Kearney said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling inAT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Kearney said Herzfeld did not waive her collective or class actionright, but rather lost it under operation of law because thearbitration clause does not recite that right.

"Paradoxically, by not including language addressing a collectiveor class action in arbitration, Gold Club is able to now argueHerzfeld loses her statutory right to a collective action andability to bring her class claims in arbitration," Kearney said.

Because the arbitration agreement does not allow for class orcollective arbitration, an arbitrator would not be able to giveHerzfeld the full scope of Fair Labor Standards Act remedies, hesaid.

Gold Club had argued Herzfeld ratified the arbitration clause whenshe took it home for her "mother/attorney's" review and returnedto work for almost a year before filing the suit. But Kearney saidhe was shown no case law that allowed for the ratification of anunconscionable clause.

Kearney denied Gold Club's motion to compel arbitration in thecase.

Herzfeld sued Gold Club under the FLSA on behalf of herself andthose similarly situated. She is seeking unpaid minimum wages,unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours aweek and liquidated damages. She also seeks to bring a classaction on behalf of all Gold Club dancers under the PennsylvaniaMinimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and CollectionLaw.

Gregory Asciolla, Co-Chair of Firm's Antitrust & CompetitionLitigation Practice, noted, "Treasury securities are the bedrockof this nation's financial security. This is a cause for greatconcern as investors worldwide are being injured and deceived."

Treasury securities -- debt instruments issued by the U.S.Treasury Department -- are not only used to help finance U.S.government operations, but are also used by state and localmunicipalities, corporations, investment funds, hedge funds,pension funds and individuals for investing and hedging purposes.Interest rates set by auctions for treasury securities are alsoused as benchmarks for many other types of debt and debt-relatedinstruments, including student loan debt, bonds, interest rateswaps, and exchange-traded treasury futures and options.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants employed a multi-prongedscheme to effectively "sell high and buy low," colluding to induceinvestors to pay high prices for debt securities purchased fromdefendants in the pre-auction market, called the "when issuedmarket," and to depress the price of the securities that thedefendants themselves bought at auction to cover these sales,pocketing the difference.

According to the complaint, the defendants manipulated thetreasury securities market by using chat rooms, instant messaging,and other methods to exchange confidential customer informationand coordinate trading strategies.

"The defendants' scheme struck at the heart of the U.S. economy:the ability of the government to efficiently raise capital viaTreasury auctions," said Labaton Sucharow partner Michael W.Stocker. "This collusion not only robbed investors participatingin the 'when issued' market for these auction securities, butimposed billions in additional costs on borrowers ranging fromstudents to municipalities."

GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Cautions Lawyer During Suit Hearing--------------------------------------------------------Kevin Dugon, writing for New York Post, reported that GoldmanSachs is good at getting what it wants -- but it may backfire thistime.

A federal magistrate judge warned a Goldman lawyer to "be carefulwhat you wish for" during a hearing on an explosive sexualdiscrimination lawsuit, since trying to prevent a class actioncould lead to more litigation.

The hearing was the latest twist in a five-year-old suit thatalleges a "boys club" atmosphere rife with client meetings atstrip clubs, golf outings that excluded women execs, and femaleassociates and vice presidents getting paid less than their malecolleagues.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to add two women to thelawsuit -- Allison Gamba, a former VP in the securities division,and Mary De Luis, who's currently in investment management -- inorder to satisfy a rule for class-action certification that one ofthe plaintiffs is currently an employee.

The original plaintiffs, Cristina Chen-Oster, a former VP, andShanna Orlich, who was an associate, are seeking unspecifieddamages and an order requiring the bank to fix its alleged frat-house culture.

Goldman has denied the allegations. Its lawyer, Robert Giuffra,said during the latest hearing that the court should deny theclass-action certification in part because Gamba knew about thecase since at least 2012 and only sought to join it after thejudge had ruled against certification in March.

Giuffra cited a sexual discrimination case against Walmart where aWest Coast appeals court ruled said that 1.6 million women didn'tmake up a class.

Goldman is seeking to have Gamba and De Luis file separatelawsuits in the same court.

But while Judge James Francis seemed to lean toward ruling inGoldman's favor, he warned the bank of its consequences.

"Be careful what you wish for," Francis said.

"I'm not sure Walmart did the right thing," he said, adding thedecision ended up "spawning" multiple lawsuits.

HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Has Final Order for "Frater" Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------Hemispherx Biopharma (NYSE: HEB) announced that the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issuedan order granting final approval of a settlement of the securitiesclass action, Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. A finalsettlement hearing was conducted on July 22, 2015. No Companyfunds were used to pay the settlement, the settlement was fundedby the insurance company for Hemispherx. The settlement expresslyis not an admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any ofthe individual defendants.

Thomas K. Equels, General Counsel, stated: "Our team will be gladto have this class action behind us so that we can focus our timeand resources on the important work of new drug developmentrelated to Ampligen(R) and the manufacturing and marketing of ourFDA approved anti-viral Alferon(R)."

HERTZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Class Suit-----------------------------------------Laura Layden, writing for Naples Daily News, reported that aclass-action lawsuit accusing Hertz and two of its formerexecutives of misleading investors has been tossed out -- again.

In an order dated July 22, a federal judge in New Jersey grantedHertz's motion to dismiss the complaint.

A Hertz spokesman declined to comment.

The original lawsuit, filed in November 2013, was thrown out byanother federal judge late last year after Hertz argued theplaintiffs took a "kitchen sink" approach in their pleadings andtheir claims were based on "legally flawed criticisms."

After dismissing the first complaint, U.S. District Judge StanleyChesler gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended lawsuit ifthey wanted to continue their battle -- and they did.

Following a second complaint filed in November of last year, Hertzargued the plaintiffs had "resubmitted essentially the sameallegations that the court already dismissed," and once againfailed to support their claims for securities fraud.

The original lawsuit came after Hertz reported disappointingthird-quarter earnings in the fall of 2013, which it partlyattributed to weaker demand for car rentals at U.S. airports. Thecompany's stock price fell by more than $4 a share on the news.

In her ruling, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, foundthe allegations in the amended suit were insufficient and failed"on a number of grounds" to demonstrate that Hertz, its formerCEO, Mark Frissora, and a former chief financial officer, ElyseDouglas, gave investors financial information "with actualknowledge of its falsity."

The judge said she was convinced Hertz adequately cautionedinvestors about the potential risks it faced due to a governmentsequester, its Dollar Thrifty acquisition, declining market valuesfor its rental cars and its ability to manage its fleet size. Shealso said the allegations failed to show evidence of "consciousmisbehavior and recklessness," or "fraudulent intent."

Pedro Ramirez Jr., who lives in Riverside, Connecticut, was thefirst to sue, though he was just a small investor. His case waslater combined with a similar one and the Sheet Metal WorkersLocal No. 80 became the lead plaintiff. According to courtdocuments, the trust fund purchased tens of thousands of Hertzshares during the months covered by the complaint.

An attorney for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.

In her order, Judge Arleo gave the plaintiffs until Aug. 22 tofile an amended complaint, or the case will be dismissed.

HHGREGG INC: Ex-Manager Wins Class Suit Over Bonuses----------------------------------------------------Scott Olson, writing for IBJ.com, reported that a former HHGreggInc. manager has won his lawsuit charging that the company failedto pay incentive bonuses after reaching certain financial goals,potentially leading to millions of dollars in damages.

The company collected the $40 million life insurance payout afterExecutive Chairman Jerry Throgmartin died in 2012.

Underwood claimed HHGregg should have paid him a $25,000 bonusbased on the company's fiscal 2012 earnings before interest,taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITA, of $144.4 million.

Instead, HHGregg based bonuses on "adjusted EBITA," which excludedthe life insurance payout.

"Nowhere in the statement does HHGregg reserve the right to onlyissue a bonus in its discretion; rather, HHGregg is offering aperformance-based bonus, which is to be paid if certain financialstandards are met in a fiscal year," Altice wrote in his decision.

Eric Pavlack, attorney for the approximately 50 current and formerHHGregg employees in the class action, said the judge's decisionsupported their argument that they should have been paid thebonuses.

"We're extremely pleased with the results and think it's the rightdecision," he said.

An HHGregg official told IBJ on that the company was disappointedby the ruling.

"We are committed to always acting with integrity and conductingbusiness in an ethical and legal manner," said Heather Greenawald,vice president and general counsel. "We are disappointed with thedecision and will explore all legal avenues at our disposal inresponse. We remain proud of our employment record and ourposition as an employer of choice in Indianapolis and across theU.S."

Underwood voluntarily left the company in January 2013, two monthsbefore he filed suit. He sued the company for breach of contractand unjust enrichment.

HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT---------------------------------------------------------------Lawrence Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02742-MHC (N.D. Ga., August 3, 2015), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of theFair Labor Standard Act.

Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC provides emergency roadsideservices to its customers in the State of Georgia.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISION

In re HOT TOPIC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. 2:13-cv-02939-SJO(JCx)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

IF YOU HELD HOT TOPIC, INC. ("HOT TOPIC") COMMON STOCK ON THERECORD DATE, MAY 3, 2013, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS"),YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS ASSET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California, that the above-captionedlitigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class actionand that a Settlement has been proposed for $14,900,000 in cash.A hearing will be held on October 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., beforethe Honorable S. James Otero at the United States Courthouse, 312North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for the purpose ofdetermining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should beapproved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; and (2)the application of Lead Plaintiff's counsel for the payment ofattorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead Plaintiff's expensesincurred in connection with the Litigation, should be approved.

If you are a Class Member described above, your rights may beaffected by the Settlement of the Litigation and you may beentitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have notreceived a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement ofClass Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim andRelease, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contactingthe Claims Administrator: Hot Topic, Inc. Securities Litigation,c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040,1-877-203-8900. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation ofSettlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release atwww.hottopicsecuritiessettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in thedistribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proofof Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 12, 2015.If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claimand Release, you will not be eligible to share in the distributionof the Net Settlement Fund but you will still be bound by anyjudgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including thereleases provided for therein).

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a writtenrequest for exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2015, and inaccordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If youare a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, youwill be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in thisLitigation (including the releases provided for therein), whetheror not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. If you submit awritten request for exclusion, you will have no right to recovermoney pursuant to the Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement or the request forattorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court anddelivered such that it is received by each of the following nolater than September 7, 2015: Danielle S. Myers, Esq Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900 F: (619) 231-7423

Koskie Minsky LLP and Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP filed thesuit against Hydro One, as well as four of its subsidiaries, on atthe Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The law firms say the claim is being brought on behalf of allHydro One customers who have used the service since May of 2013.Hydro One customer Paul Foster is set to be the representativeplaintiff in the case.

Ontario's Ombudsman Andre Marin blasted Hydro One in a May reportthat found some 100,000 households had massive billing errors,which were attributed to a new billing system. Marin said hisoffice received more than 10,000 complaints from Hydro Onecustomers about over-billing.

The class action lawsuit focuses on the problems surrounding therollout of the new billing system. The lawsuit alleges:

Thousands of customers stopped receiving bills.

Others received bills based on estimates, then later received"massive 'catch-up' bills."

Hydro One automatically withdrew large quantities of money fromcustomers' accounts without notice or explanation.

Thousands of customers dealt with billing and administrativeerrors, including "bills that did not reflect the electricityactually consumed."

"Hydro One customers are particularly vulnerable to Hydro One'sadministration and billing abuses as a result of its nearmonopolistic nature and the importance of the services it rendersto customers," said Kirk M. Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP,in a news release about the court filing.

Eric R. Hoaken, a partner at Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP said,in the same release, "It's time that Hydro One accounted for thebilling abuses it has perpetrated on its customers."

In the wake of the ombudsman's report, Hydro One officials saidthe utility has fixed its billing issues and said the company isworking to improve its customer service.

ICONIX BRAND: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline---------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwiseacquired Iconix shares between February 20, 2013 and April 17,2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get moreinformation go to http://zlk.9nl.com/iconix-brand-iconor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or bytelephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There isno cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/ormisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) theCompany had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (b) theCompany engaged in irregular accounting practices related to thebooking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow,and organic growth; and (c) as a result of the aforementioned, theCompany's earnings and revenues were overstated.

On April 17, 2015, Iconix announced that the Company's ChiefOperating Officer had resigned. Then on April 20, 2015, RothCapital Partners published an Equity Research Note criticizing theCompany's alleged accounting irregularities.

If you suffered a loss in Iconix you have until August 24, 2015torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your abilityto share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a leadplaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys haveextensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involvingfinancial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation insecurities and shareholder lawsuits.

IDI INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit---------------------------------------------------Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuithas been filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entitieswho purchased IDI, Inc. ("IDI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IDI)securities between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015, inclusive("Class Period"), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company andcertain of its officers (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements toinvestors and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Chairman MichaelBrauser was named as a defendant in multiple civil fraudlitigations; (b) Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of acompany that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an adversary inthat bankruptcy proceeding; and (c) the lawsuit filed byTransunion against the Company over intellectual property rightscould render IDI's stock worthless. When the true details enteredthe market, the Complaint alleges that the stock dropped 46% andcaused damage to investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than September 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is arepresentative party acting on behalf of other class members indirecting the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, orto discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mailat tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com

IDI INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit----------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announcesthat it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasersof IDI, Inc. (IDI) securities from April 30, 2015 through July 21,2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeksto recover damages for IDI investors under the federal securitieslaws.

To join the IDI class action, go to the website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or emailpkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on theclass action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of Florida.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendantsissued materially false and misleading statements to investorsand/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chairman Michael Brauser wasnamed as a defendant in multiple civil fraud litigation; (2)Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of a company that filed forbankruptcy and was sued as an adversary in that bankruptcyproceeding; and (3) IDI's Transunion lawsuit could render IDI'sstock worthless. When the true details entered the market, thelawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanSeptember 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go tohttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact PhillipKim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.

JAGUAR LAND: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Electrical Systems-----------------------------------------------------------Amy Block, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarlysituated v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05957-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought on behalf ofall the individuals and entities who own or have owned Land RoverLR2 vehicles manufactured and sold by the Defendant, containingdefective electrical systems which cause the battery to drain andcause the vehicle to have starting problems.

Headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey, Jaguar Land Rover NorthAmerica, LLC, distributes, markets, sells, and services luxurycars and sport utility vehicles, and related parts and accessoriesin the United States.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Class Suit Filed Over Home Classification---------------------------------------------------------------Michelle Heath, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reported that aclass action suit filed alleges the Jefferson County AppraisalDistrict and its chief appraiser "unilaterally and fraudulently"reclassified almost 8,000 homes from one-and-half stories to twostories for the purpose of increasing tax revenue.

The lawsuit asserts that the homeowners were unaware of any changein classification of their homes by Chief Appraiser AngelaBellard.

Beaumont Homeowner Elaine Henderson filed the lawsuit on behalf ofherself and the other homeowners.

The filing also asks the court to temporarily prevent theappraisal district from sending the new, higher values to theJefferson County Tax Office, said Bailey Wingate, who isrepresenting Henderson along with Beaumont attorney Brent Coon.

The lawsuit contends that Bellard did not notify the homeowners orthe appraisal district's board of directors when the market valuewas raised.

Bellard "took it upon herself to combine the one and one halfstory classification with the two story classification," accordingto the lawsuit.

The homeowners learned of the change when they received a taxnotice in April, Wingate said.

According to the lawsuit, "long-time distinctions" between one-and-half and two-story houses "were eviscerated for nearly 8,000homeowners by the unilateral change."

Bellard said a change in price per square foot was made for one-and-half story houses, but no "reclassifiication" was done.

"We were noticing that sales were indicating the same price persquare foot in a one-and-a-half story as a two-story," Bellardsaid.

The appraisal district changed the price per square foot in one-and-a-half story homes to reflect the market value, she said.

"It's not different than anything we've done before," she said."It could change -- it just depends on what the sales reflect."

Henderson was denied relief at a JCAD protest hearing on.

Coon also filed a protest because he saw that his market value hadincreased.

After the hearing, Coon and Wingate became partners in Henderson'scase and spoke to the JCAD board at meeting.

The board told the attorneys that the matter would beinvestigated.

Wingate said he would like to settle the matter out of court andfiled the lawsuit as a "backup."

Bellard believes there's a "misunderstanding" since she says theclassification of homes never changed.

"I think there could be a misconception about what our office ischarged with," she said.

KAWASAKI KISEN: Settles in US Price Fixing Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------Marcus hand, writing for Seatrade Maritime News, reported thatKawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) has reached a settlement in a classaction suit in the US over price fixing in the car carrierbusiness.

K-Line is the first to settle in the class action suit brought bya group of consumers and auto and truck and equipment dealershipsin antitrust claims against more than 12 international shippingfirms.

"We are delighted to announce the first major settlement in thevehicle carriers case with K-Line," said attorney Warren T. Burnsof Burns Charest, interim co-lead counsel for the end-payorplaintiffs. "This is a very significant and substantial first stepto assure that American consumers are compensated for theconspiracy to fix the price of international car-shippingservices. We expect to make the dollar amount public very soon aswe file for preliminary approval of the class settlement."

Details of the settlement were not released.

Among the other shipping companies involved in the class actionsuit are Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) and CSAV.

KB HOME: Trial in "Edwards" Case to Occur in 2016 or Later----------------------------------------------------------KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on July 2, 2015, for the quarterly periodended May 31, 2015, that a trial, or trials, involving otherplaintiffs in the Edwards class action is (are) expected to bescheduled to occur in 2016 or later.

"We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, are a defendant inlawsuits that allege violations of federal and state wage and hourstatutes," the Company said. "In May 2011, a group of current andformer sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofTexas, Houston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. Thelawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives andfailed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the FairLabor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07). In September2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide classthat, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs.On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trialinvolving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December2015. A trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in theEdwards case is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 orlater."

"As of the date of this report, the putative class consists of 241members, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who weresales representatives from September 2009 to the present. TheBejenaru court has not certified the case as a class action.Depending on the Bejenaru court's decisions in the matter, theputative class could increase in size and include otherindividuals, and the case could be certified as a class action.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case andthe Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages,penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys'fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in thelawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The ultimateoutcome of these matters is uncertain and we are unable toestimate the amount or the range of reasonably possible loss, ifany. However, we believe we have meritorious defenses to theplaintiffs' claims."

KEURIG GREEN: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP announces a class action lawsuit has been filedagainst Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig" or the "Company")and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in UnitedStates District Court, Northern District of California, is onbehalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities whopurchased Keurig securities between February 4, 2015 and May 14,2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks torecover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of thefederal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Keurig securities duringthe Class Period, you have until August 18, 2015 to ask the Courtto appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss thisaction, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those whoinquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Keurig produces and sells specialty coffee, coffeemakers, teas,and other beverages in the United States and Canada. It sources,produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other beveragesunder various brands in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and Boltportion packs brands; and coffee in traditional packaging,including bags and fractional packs, as well as offers whole beanand ground coffee in bags, fractional packages, and cans.

On May 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release aftermarketannouncing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of2015. The press release revealed that the Company's sales growthfor the quarter fell below its previously stated expectations. Onthat same day, Bloomberg Business published an article concerningthe slow sales of the Keurig 2.0 brewing system for the quarter.

On this news, shares of Keurig fell $9.92 per share, or over 9%,to close at $98.16 per share on May 7, 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the Company held a webcast aftermarket concerningKeurig Kold. During the webcast, Defendant Kelley revealed KeurigKold will be sold online and in certain stores starting this fall,but won't be available in all its retail outlets until.

On this news, shares of Keurig fell $8.82 per share, or over 8%,to close at $94.26 per share on May 15, 2015, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms inthe areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust classlitigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as thedean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered thefield of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, thePomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fightingfor the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches offiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recoverednumerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of classmembers.

KEURIG GREEN: August 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline---------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredshares of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") (nasdaqgs:GMCR)between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California. If you purchased or otherwiseacquired Keurig shares between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015,your rights may be affected by this action. To get moreinformation go to http://zlk.9nl.com/keurig-green-mountain-gmcror contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com orby telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. Thereis no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/ormisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given thecontinuing consumer confusion over Keurig's 2.0 brewing system;(b) retail distribution of the new cold brewing system Keurig Koldwould be delayed; and (c) as a result, statements about theCompany's business, operations, and prospects were false andmisleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Keurig you have until August 18, 2015torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your abilityto share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a leadplaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys haveextensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involvingfinancial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation insecurities and shareholder lawsuits.

On certain travel trailers, windows which are identified asemergency exits may not be designed for this purpose, or may beblocked by rear roof access ladders. This could prevent egressfrom the vehicle in an emergency situation, increasing the risk ofinjury. Correction: Owners will be given instructions on how toremove the labels.

LIFELOCK INC: Tripp Levy Files Securities Class Suit----------------------------------------------------Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading national securities law firm, announcesthat a class action lawsuit was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class(the "Class") of purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc.("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014 and July 20,2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, amongothers: (1) that the Company had failed to establish and maintaina comprehensive information security program to protect its users'sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security,and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertisedthat it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Companyfailed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeepingrequirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, theCompany's statements about its business, operations, andprospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonablebasis.

If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period andhave suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from your investment inLifeLock common stock and would like to learn more about thislawsuit, including your ability to potentially recover yourlosses, please contact us either by email at contact@tripplevy.comor by telephone at (800) 511-7037 or visit our website atwww.tripplevy.com. In addition, if you wish to serve as leadplaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from thedate of this notice. If you are a member of this class you canjoin this class action to potentially recover your losses bycontacting us.

Tripp Levy PLLC is a leading national securities and shareholderrights law firm representing both individual and institutionalshareholders and, along with its affiliate, have recoveredbillions of dollars for shareholders. Tripp Levy PLLC isaffiliated with Milberg LLP. The National Law Journal has namedMilberg one of the "50 Elite Trial Lawyer Firms" and one of the"50 Leading Plaintiff Firms in America."

MADISON COUNTY, IL: Petitions to Appeal Class Certification-----------------------------------------------------------Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reportedthat roughly one month after visiting judge William Becker filedan official order granting class certification in a Madison Countyclass action, defendants accused of participating in the allegedbid rigging scheme filed petitions to appeal the order, saying theorder was rushed.

Defendant Madison County and tax buyer James Foley filed separatepetitions for leave to appeal to the Fifth District AppellateCourt through attorney Craig Unrath of Heyl Royster on July 13.

They argue that Becker hastily approved class certification beforehaving answers on heavily-debated issues, such as how to calculatedamages and whether every class member's property was a delinquentsale.

"The trial court chose to take a 'we'll figure it out later'approach," both petitions state

"Such an approach is not supported by class action jurisprudence."

"Neither plaintiffs nor the trial court, however, have providedany analysis of how this action raising numerous counts againstover 20 different defendants could be conducted on a class-widebasis," the petitions state. "There is no discussion of how atrial can be conducted on different theories against differentdefendants. There is no discussion of what damages methodology canbe used. Punting these issues for resolution down the road is notappropriate."

The class consists of anyone who owned a parcel of property thatwas sold at a Madison County tax sale auction from 2005 to 2008 ata penalty rate of 12 percent or higher.

Becker, a Clinton County associate judge, was appointed to presideover the case to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Federal prosecutors, who brought down former Madison Countytreasurer Fred Bathon and tax buyers, say that between 2005 and2009, tax buyers engaged in price fixing by only bidding thestatutory maximum interest rate of 18 percent. The rigging was sopervasive that distressed homeowners were charged the maximum rateon nearly every property tax lien sold during that period.

Bathon was convicted of structuring property tax sales in a waythat eliminated competitive bidding and increased interest ratesfor the tax buyers in exchange for campaign contributions.

He and tax buyers Barret Rochman, Scott McLean and John Vassenpleaded guilty to antitrust violations in 2013.

Bathon was sentenced to 30 months in prison, but only had to serve18 months. He was released on June 25.

In their petitions, the defendants argue that the trial courtabused its discretion when it certified the class action, byfailing to consider the following:

* Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in establishing all ofthe elements for class certification and must do more than rely onthe mere allegations in their complaint;

* Plaintiffs must possess a valid cause of action against thedefendants before a class can be certified;

* Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives as theyhave competing interests and did not purchase taxes in all of thetax years in question from all of the defendants; and

* A class action is not appropriate for the fair and efficientadjudication of this case.

In addition to an order reversing Becker's class certification,Madison County requests the appellate court to dismiss the claimsmade against it.

Unrath noted that all but two claims against Madison County havebeen dismissed -- claims for sales in error and money had andreceived. The defendant argues that these claims are not viableand class certification, let alone the allegations themselves, areimproper.

In the petition, Unrath wrote that the Sales in Error statute is"designed to benefit the tax buyer, not the delinquent tax payer."

"By the precise language of the statute, the class representativeslack standing to pursue a claim for Sale in Error as they are notalleged to be tax buyers and have not shown that they are taxbuyers," he wrote.

Reiterating that the class representatives do not have standing topursue a Sale in Error claim, Unrath adds that a class actionclaim for sale in error requires consideration of individualizedissues for each parcel of property, making class certificationinappropriate.

"When the statutory factors are reviewed, it becomes apparent thatsuccessful adjudication of one plaintiff's claim will notestablish a right of recovery in any other class member.

"Class action precedent mandates that a judgment in favor of theclass members should decisively settle the entire controversy, andall that should remain is for other members of the class to fileproof of their claim," the petition states.

As for the money had and received claim, Unrath argues that theplaintiffs failed to allege any facts suggesting Madison Countyretained any money as a result of Bathon's tax-buying system.

"Put simply, no money was 'had,' nor was any 'received,'" he wrote

Madison County asserts that it received no benefits from Bathon'sconduct.

"For each putative class member, a determination of MadisonCounty's liability for money had and received cannot be madewithout an evaluation of whether Madison County retained fundsfrom the individual absent class member's payment of allegedlyexcessive penalty rates," Unrath wrote.

"This is especially true in this case where, as a matter ofpractice and as plaintiffs concede, Madison County did not retainmoney paid due to the allegedly excessive penalty rates but wouldhave simply passed that money on to the tax buyers."

"Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as tohow damages could be tried or determined. The reason for thisoversight is readily apparent -- the individualized nature ofdamages so predominates over any common issues that classcertification is improper," Unrath wrote.

The defendants reiterate that in order to determine damages andcausation, the court would have to conduct an "extensive" analysisinto every single parcel of land and every single tax sale.

"Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as tohow damages could be tried or determined and the trial court couldnot come up with a plan on its own

Instead, it said it is satisfied that an appropriate method can bereached. If this class is to be certified, litigants have a rightto know how damages will be calculated," Foley's petition states.

Additionally, they accuse the three plaintiffs of being inadequateclass representatives, arguing that none of them had delinquenttaxes for all of the appropriate years and did not have taxespurchased by all of the named defendants.

"Moreover, as part of this action, Straeter wants to challenge hisproperty tax assessments and recover some of the underlyingproperty taxes he paid on his property," the petitions state."This makes Straeter's claim significantly different from those ofabsent class members."

Because Foley is accused as a tax buyer participating in Bathon'sscheme, his petition specifically argues that claims against himcannot be proven on a class-wide basis, meaning classcertification should not have been approved.

This recall involves the My Snuggly Ellie Activity Toy. The toy isa plush brown elephant with white crinkle ears. The green hangingloop on top of its head can attach to a stroller or crib. On thestomach, there is a mini mirror while a teether and wooden ringhang below its body. Item number 12520 can be found on the smallwhite tag sewn into the bottom of the toy.

The wooden ring can break into small pieces, posing a chokinghazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Manhattan Group has received any reportsof consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Manhattan Group has received one report of the wooden ringbreaking in Norway. No injuries were reported. The company has notreceived any reports of injuries in the United States.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help themkeep children safe when they play with toys, see the General ToySafety Tips.

Approximately 100 units of the recalled toys were distributed inCanada, and approximately 2,700 units were distributed in theUnited States at specialty toy and baby stores, and online atwww.manhattantoy.com.

The recalled toys were distributed from February 2014 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Manhattan Group LLC Minneapolis Minnesota UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away fromchildren and return the toy where it was purchased for a fullrefund.

For more information, consumers may contact Manhattan Group toll-free at 1-800-541-1345 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Mondaythrough Friday. Consumers may also visit the firm's website andclick on "Recalls" for additional information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report----------------------------------------------------------------James Wesley Carter, individually and on behalf of a class ofsimilarly situated persons v. McDonald's Restaurants andBackgroundchecks.Com, Case No 2:15-cv-05728 (C.D. Cal., July 29,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide aclear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report may beobtained for employment purposes.

MICREL INC: Executed MOU to Settle California Action----------------------------------------------------Micrel, Incorporated, said in its Form 8-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that theCompany has executed a memorandum of understanding (the"Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the California Action,which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claimsagainst all defendants.

On May 7, 2015, Micrel, Incorporated (the "Company"), entered intoan Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") withMicrochip Technology Incorporated, a Delaware corporation("Microchip"), Mambo Acquisition Corp., a California corporationand a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub"), andMambo Acquisition LLC, a California limited liability company anda wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub LLC"). TheMerger Agreement provides for the acquisition of the Company byMicrochip by means of a first step merger of Merger Sub with andinto the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving theMerger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip (the "InterimSurviving Company"), and a second step merger of the InterimSurviving Company into Merger Sub LLC, with Merger Sub LLCsurviving the second step merger as a wholly owned subsidiary ofMicrochip.

Between May 15, 2015 and May 29, 2015, four class action lawsuitswere filed in Superior Court of the State of California by allegedshareholders of the Company against the Company, the individualdirectors of the Company, Microchip, Merger Sub and Merger SubLLC, which have been consolidated by order of the Court as Allanv. Micrel, Incorporated, et al., Lead Case No. 1-15-cv-280762 onJune 5, 2015 (the "California Action").

On June 30, 2015, the Company executed a memorandum ofunderstanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding) to settle theCalifornia Action, which would include the dismissal withprejudice of all claims against all defendants. The partiesanticipate filing a stipulation of settlement with the Court afterthe consummation of the merger. The proposed settlement isconditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the mergerand final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. Inaddition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in theMemorandum of Understanding, the parties contemplate thatplaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees andexpenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance thatthe merger will be consummated or that the court will approve thesettlement. In such event, the proposed settlement contemplated bythe Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. The settlementwill not affect the amount of merger consideration the Company'sshareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.

As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make certainsupplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, whichwere included in the amended Form S-4 Proxy Statement/Prospectusdeemed filed on June 26, 2015 with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission (the "SEC").

The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims inthe California Action are entirely without merit and, in the eventthe settlement does not resolve them, intend to vigorously defendthis action.

On certain school buses, bolts securing the battery box to the busbody may be missing, causing the number of fasteners securing thebattery box to be inadequate. In addition, battery terminalshields were also omitted, contributing to corrosion. This couldresult in the battery box separating from the vehicle and increasethe risk of a fire and/or crash causing injury and/or damage toproperty. Correction: Dealers will replace corroded components,add shields and replace missing bolts.

The case-backs may become separated from the watch case exposingthe module to water, potentially causing a skin irritation.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidentsor injuries related to the use of this product.

MZB has received 10 reports, including 1 in Canada, of consumerincidents involving skin irritations or chemical burns.

Approximately 2 million of the watches were distributed in Canadaand in the United States, 58,800 of which were distributed inCanada. They were sold at Winners Merchants International LP,Walmart Canada, Sears Canada Inc. and Target.

The affected watches were sold in Canada from August 2012 to June2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: MZB Long Island City New York UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the recalled product and return it totheir nearest retail location for a full refund or store credit.

Consumers may also contact MZB directly for a refund by calling 1-888-770-7085. For more information, see MZB's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge madean error by dismissing the case too soon, at the request of theluxury retailer, on the grounds that anyone whose information wasused maliciously had already been compensated. The lawsuit allegedthat victims who didn't immediately suffer after the breach stillfaced an increased risk for future criminal use of their data.

Chief Judge Diane Wood said those affected "should not have towait until hackers commit identity theft or credit-card fraud inorder to give the class standing," according to a release, andadded there is an "objective reasonable likelihood' that such aninjury will occur."

NELSON WATSON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FDCPA Violation----------------------------------------------------------Alfredo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarlysituated v. Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC, CBE Group and JohnDoe 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3,2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the FairDebt Collection Practices Act.

NEWCREST MINING: Ruling Provides Meaning, Effect of s33ZF---------------------------------------------------------Nicole Wearne, Esq. -- nicole.wearne@nortonrosefulbright.com -- atNorton Rose Fulbright Australia, in an article for Lexology, wrotethat there have been a number of decisions in both the FederalCourt of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria where theCourt has been prepared to require that non party class membersproduce information to the parties and the court to assist in thedetermination of issues. Principle to the court's consideration asto the ambit of its power to order group members to take a moreactive role in the litigation is s33ZF found in Part IVA of thevarious Court Acts. It provides:

In any proceeding (including an appeal) conducted under this Part,the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or agroup member, make any order the Court thinks appropriate ornecessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding.

In 2013 and 2014 the Australian Securities and InvestmentsCommission investigated conduct of Newcrest, which resulted in theimposition of pecuniary penalties. In legal proceedings ASICalleged that Newcrest had engaged in two contraventions of s674(2)of the Corporations Act 2001 relating to disclosure to the ASX ofNewcrest's total gold production and capital expenditure for the2014 financial year. ASIC prosecuted Newcrest in respect of thealleged contraventions and Newcrest admitted each contraventionand consented to various declarations being made and penaltiesimposed for the purpose of the ASIC proceedings.

The applicant commenced a class action on its behalf and on behalfof certain investors who had signed a litigation funding agreementwith Comprehensive Funding Legal LLC, alleging various breaches byNewcrest of its continuous disclosure obligations between 2012 and2013, and misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s1041H Corporations Act and s12DA of the Australian Securities andInvestments Commission Act 2001. The applicant represents thosepersons who:

-- at any time during the period from 13 August 2012 until theclose of trading of the ASX on 6 June 2013 (the class period)acquired an interest in securities traded of the ASX under thedesignation "NCM" (Newcrest shares); and

-- suffered loss or damage by or resulting from the conduct ofNewcrest pleaded in the ASOC.

The applicant is a small investor and the trustee of two trusts: afamily trust and a self managed superannuation fund. The trusteeheld Newcrest securities on behalf of the family trust at thebeginning of the class period, purchased securities for thesuperannuation fund in late May 2013 and sold all of the shares itheld for both trusts on 25 June 2013. The total shareholding wasaround 9,400 shares.

The Application

Newcrest applied to the court for an order that the individualclaims of two institutional shareholder group members, who wereamong Newcrest's top 20 shareholders at the relevant time, betried at the first stage trial of the proceeding involving theapplicant's individual claim and the common issues. Newcrestemphasised the evidentiary benefits and assistance for settlement.Newcrest relied on the broad power of the court to make an orderin the proceeding as provided for by s33ZF. It contended that theapplicant's claim provided limited cover of issues in theproceeding and was not truly representative of investors inNewcrest.

The applicant accepted that s33ZF empowered the court to make thetype of order being sought by Newcrest, providing that thestatutory test was satisfied and that it was an appropriateexercise of discretion, both of which the applicant submitted hadnot been established.

The Decision

His Honour considered the concluding words of the statute andinterpreted s33ZF as requiring him to consider whether he thoughtthat the order sought by Newcrest is appropriate, to ensure thatjustice is done in the proceeding. He noted it was not sufficientfor him to think it "merely convenient" nor was it a "licence topermit His Honour to impose his own expansive case managementphilosophy". Rather the court must be satisfied that any ordermade ensures that justice is done in the proceeding to satisfy thestatutory test.

In coming to his decision to refuse the application, His Honouraccepted that other courts had made orders requiring group membersto take an active role. That conduct included compelling discoveryand the delivery of particulars of loss, provision of contributiontowards security for costs and provision of group memberidentities. But the context of the examples was important and themere fact that it was possible and justifiable to make such anorder, did not support the proposition that whenever the courtconsidered it was convenient to do so that it should.

In submitting that the group members already accepted that theycould be required to be a more active participant in thelitigation, Newcrest relied on the terms of the funding agreementbetween the group members and the funder, which required them tocooperate in the litigation if given a direction by Slater &Gordon. His Honour while accepting that the provisions of thefunding agreement may facilitate a more active role did notconsider that the terms added anything to the statutory test ofensuring justice is done in the proceeding.

His Honour also accepted that the role and behaviour of theinstitutional investor was relevant to the dispute and commonquestions and his reasons provide a detailed analysis in supportof why the evidence is important in a shareholder class action.However, he considered that it might be possible for the court todetermine issues in the case without the evidence of institutionalinvestors and if it was necessary then the applicant would need tolead the relevant evidence, or both it and the group would bedetrimentally affected. It was not for the court to impose nor forNewcrest to seek to compel.

Beach J noted that the applicant had proposed a particularapproach to the expert evidence relevant to a quantitativeassessment of the impact of the relevant representations and non-disclosure contraventions and a qualitative assessment of thematerial information to the Newcrest market of investors. Whetherthe applicant's forensic choice was sound was not for the court tosay and His Honour accepted that the choices of evidence to becalled and risks assessments to be made was a decision for theparties and not the Court. Such matters are "not for the Court toimpose in form or to conduce in substance if not in form. They arecertainly not for one party to impose on the other directly orindirectly via the s 33ZF mechanism or through the likely effectof any order that might be made under s 33ZF."

While accepting that evidence from institutional investors isrelevant to the common issues, such evidence was not necessary toestablish the applicant's individual claim or one or more of thecommon issues.

His Honour was not convinced of the Newcrest submission that theprovision of institutional sample investors could potentiallyfacilitate earlier settlement after the first stage trial. He waspersuaded that whatever the perceived advantages of adjudicatingon a range of individual cases to facilitate a post first stagetrial mediation process, that was not sufficient to justify therequested exercise of power under s 33ZF. His Honour alsoconsidered that the sample of two institutional investors was notsufficiently diverse to adjudicate on. Beach J distinguished thisscenario from those proceedings where discovery and particularshas been ordered of individual group members' claims prior to thefirst stage trial in order to achieve an overall settlement beforetrial (Thomas v Powercor and Regent Holdings v State of Victoria).He considered such pre-trial disclosure of sufficient individualdata to facilitate an overall pre-trial settlement is a differentcontext than what was proposed by Newcrest with two institutionalinvestors at the first stage trial to facilitatesettlementthereafter.

Ultimately His Honour considered that there was not substantialprejudice to Newcrest in refusing the orders but rather consideredthat if there was a lack of institutional investor participation,it was more likely to prejudice the applicant than Newcrest.

Finally His Honour noted that even if he did think it appropriateto make such an order he would not do so until after the opt outdate had passed because only then could the parties know whichinstitutional investors were part of the group. Were such anapplication to be made at that time, His Honour considered itwould be appropriate to permit the particular investor anopportunity to be heard before making final orders, against theirwill.

Conclusion

Beach J's decision is particularly helpful for practitionersadvising their clients on the circumstances which need to besatisfied before the court will make an order under s33ZF. Wherethe parties do not agree to the appointment of sample groupmembers to determine particular issues, it is less likely that thecourt will impose an additional cost burden on the group members,where the applicant has adopted a particular forensic approach.Rather the court has made it clear that the forensic and strategicdecision as to the evidence is for the legal advisers and theapplicant. If their approach turns out to be incorrect, then therepresentatives and group members may suffer prejudice but that isnot for the courts to pre-judge.

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle SafetyStandard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Incorrect driver andpassenger front seat belt buckles may have been installed at timeof vehicle assembly. This could result in the buckles failing tounlatch when the unlatch button is depressed, or not properlylatch, failing to meet the requirements of the standard. Thiscould increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property in acrash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the seat belt buckles andreplace as necessary.

NISSIN FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Suit Partially OK'd-----------------------------------------------------------------Carolyn Davis, Esq., at Weil Gotshal Manges LLP, in an article forLexology, reported that courts across the United States have seenan ever-growing number of food labeling class actions over thepast few years. A recent decision in the Northern District ofCalifornia granting in part and denying in part a motion todismiss concerns yet another case in this category, Guttmann v.Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00567. Theplaintiff, a repeat player in litigation regarding artificialtrans-fat, claims that Cup Noodles products manufactured bydefendant Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc. ("Nissin") containedtrans-fats despite misleading claims on product labels.

At issue was the fact that although all of the noodle productscontained partially-hydrogenated oils (and listed those oils amongthe ingredients), the nutrition-facts panel on each of the productlabels included the indication "Trans Fat: 0g." Several of theproducts also included icons on the front labels that describedthe product as containing "0g Trans Fat." Order at 2. Plaintiffclaimed that the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front labelwas misleading and violated California laws. Nissin moved todismiss and argued that plaintiff's mislabeling claims werepreempted by federal regulation.

As the court explained, "nutrition facts," statements about a foodproduct's nutrient contents in the nutrition-facts panel, and"nutrient-content claims," statements about a food product'snutrient contents outside of the nutrition-facts panel, are bothregulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").Pursuant to those regulations, if a manufacturer chooses todeclare trans-fat content in the nutrition-facts panel, for aserving size that contains less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat, thecontent must be expressed as zero. 21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(2)(ii)."Express" nutrient-content claims are permitted by regulationprovided they are "not false or misleading in any respect." 21C.F.R. 101.13(i) (3).

Plaintiff argued that his state law claims based on labeling werenot preempted by federal regulation because Nissin's nutrient-content claim on the product's front label was misleading. Thecourt disagreed, citing as precedent Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co.,752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010), where it was held that,because the FDA had already determined that "there is nonutritional difference between rounded and unrounded values of anutrient in a food" (58 Fed. Reg. 44020-01 at 44024 (Aug. 18,1993)), "use of the unrounded value could not be misleading whenused as an express nutrient-content claim." Order at 4.

As further justification for preemption, the court reasoned thatfinding the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front labelmisleading while federal regulation requires Nissin to declare theproduct's trans-fat content as zero in the nutrition-facts panelwould lead to trans-fat content being expressed in two differentways on the same product, a confusing situation for the averageconsumer. As the court stated, "[t]o permit state-law claimsbased on a "0g Trans Fat" nutrient-content claim while the FDArequired trans-fat to be declared as zero in the nutrition-factspanel would compel such a discrepancy." Order at 5.

Notably, although plaintiff's mislabeling claims were preempted,his health claims based on California Unfair Competition Law andbreach of implied warranty of merchantability survived the motionto dismiss. Adding to the intrigue, while the motion was pending,the FDA issued a final determination that partially-hydrogenatedoils are no longer "generally recognized as safe" and givingmanufacturers three years to remove partially-hydrogenated oilsfrom their products. 80 Fed. Reg. 34650 (June 17, 2015).Nonetheless, this decision represents a logical application of thefederal preemption doctrine in the food labeling arena. We willcontinue to monitor for important developments.

OCEAN POWER: Court Appointed Five More as Lead Plaintiff--------------------------------------------------------Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2015, forthe fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company and itsformer Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants inconsolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in theUnited States District Court for the District of New Jerseycaptioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidatedactions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean PowerTechnologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815; Konstantinidisv. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015;and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.3:14-cv-04592.

On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five MoreSpecial Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18, 2015lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.

The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violationsof sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and forviolations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a nowterminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd.(VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for thedevelopment of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). Theamended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and otherrelief.

The case is still in its preliminary stage and defendants have notyet responded to the amended complaint.

PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court-----------------------------------------------------------PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that C. Jeffrey Herre,individually and on behalf of similarly situated PMFGshareholders, has commenced an action in the Court of Chancery ofthe State of Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). CECO EnvironmentalCorp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition, Inc. (a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II LLC (a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of CECO), PMFG and each of the members of the board ofdirectors of PMFG were named as defendants in the Delaware Action.

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredsecurities of Puma Biotechnology Inc. ("Puma Biotechnology")between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquiredPuma Biotechnology shares between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015,your rights may be affected by this action. To get moreinformation go to http://zlk.9nl.com/pumabiotechnologyor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or bytelephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There isno cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleadingstatements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's NewDrug Application filing would be for a positive early stage breastcancer indication, rather than the previously announced metastaticbreast cancer; (b) Puma would need to submit additional safetydata from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing,which Puma did not have; (c) the additional studies required wouldpush the timelines for filing the NDA; and (d) the Companyoverstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial.

If you suffered a loss in Puma Biotechnology you have until August3, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that youserve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys haveextensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involvingfinancial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation insecurities and shareholder lawsuits.

RECEPTOS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------Morgan & Morgan announces that a shareholder class action has beenfiled in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Board ofDirectors of Receptos, Inc. ("Receptos" or "the Company") forpossible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of statelaw in connection with the sale of the Company to CelgeneCorporation ("Celgene").

If you own shares of Receptos and would like to learn more aboutthe Receptos shareholder investigation, you may contact Morgan &Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

Under the terms of the transaction, Receptos shareholders willreceive only $232.00 in cash for each share of Receptos stock theyown. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $7.2billion. The complaint alleges that the Board of Receptos breachedtheir fiduciary duties to shareholders by agreeing to the proposedtransaction for inadequate consideration. The transaction mayundervalue the Company given Receptos has a strong pipeline whichincludes drug candidates for immune diseases.

About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. Inaddition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in theareas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legalendeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor andconsumer protection and always fight "for the people."

SAFEWAY GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Term and Conditions Notice-----------------------------------------------------------------Jack Greiner, writing for Enquirer Media, reported that theSafeway Grocery store chain recently learned a valuable lessonabout changing online terms and conditions. Those terms aren'tbinding on customers who do not receive notice of the changes.That's the recent ruling from a California-based federal court.

Safeway argued the price hike was set out in amended online terms.Safeway essentially argued its arbitrary decision to change thedeal terms was all that was needed to effect those changes. InSafeway's view, the fact that Safeway customers weren't aware ofthe changes didn't matter. Safeway based this argument on a noticeappearing on its website stating that users agreed to whateverterms appeared on the website at the time customers made thepurchases.

The court, however, disagreed. It noted first that customers couldnot agree in advance to future unknown terms. It also noted that"settled law" required website operators to give advance notice ofcharges "to put users on notice of the terms to which they wish tobind consumers."

As a result, the court ruled the amendment was not effective inthe absence of evidence that Safeway gave customers advance noticeof the changes. It is like the proverbial tree falling in an emptyforest -- the change is ineffective if no one hears about it.

SANFORD HEALTH: Sued Over 'Grossly Excessive' ER Charges--------------------------------------------------------Patrick Springer, writing for Inforum, reported that a lawsuitaccusing Sanford Health of "grossly excessive" charges foremergency room services is part of a litigation boom by triallawyers whose cases are overwhelmingly thrown out by judges,Sanford executives said.

A lawsuit seeking class-action status filed earlier in Cass CountyDistrict Court is almost identical to lawsuits filed in 2006against three of South Dakota's largest hospitals, said CindyMorrison, a Sanford vice president for marketing and publicpolicy.

In all three cases -- including one against Sioux Valley Hospitalin Sioux Falls, now Sanford Health -- judges dismissed thelawsuits, saying they failed to make a valid legal claim, and thedismissals were unanimously upheld by the South Dakota SupremeCourt, she told The Forum Editorial Board.

Sanford has yet to file an answer to the Fargo lawsuit, butMorrison and Paul Richard, president of Sanford Medical Center inFargo and the health system's former chief counsel, said thehospital's billing and charging practices are consistent andfollow both the law and federal regulations.

The South Dakota lawsuits were part of a pattern that firstsurfaced after large class-action settlements with the tobaccoindustry, Morrison said, and some lawyers thought hospitals made aripe target for similar payouts.

"They are almost a mirror image of what happened a decade ago,"she said of the South Dakota cases. "I think the court has spokenon this. I think this is a reiteration of something that happened10 years ago."

Lawyers who look for plaintiffs in cases they seek to havecertified as class actions often rely on news reports, which canattract potential clients. "I hate to say it," Morrison said, "butthat's a way to troll."

Barry L. Kramer, a lawyer formerly from California and now in LasVegas, drafted the lawsuit against Sanford. He said he wasmotivated to take such cases after a client walked into his officewith a $15,000 bill for an overnight hospital stay.

A solo practitioner, Kramer's office maintains a websiteannouncing that he is "investigating excessive hospital fees," andproviding a way for people to contact him if they have visited ahospital or emergency room while uninsured.

Kramer's website invites people to submit information under theheading "Hospital Overcharges Class Actions" and says that about 1million patients have received refunds or adjustments to theirhospital bills as a result of class-action settlements that haveresulted in payments totaling almost $1 billion from hospitals topatients who he said were overcharged.

"Just because you get class certification doesn't mean you'regoing to win the case on the merits of the law or facts," Richardsaid, adding that there are "lots of hoops" to be granted class-action status.

The lawsuit against Sanford was brought on behalf of DustinLimberg of Fargo. His complaint said he went in January to theemergency room at Sanford, where he signed a contract agreeing hewas responsible for all charges for services provided by thehospital.

Those charges, Limberg's lawsuit said, are based on "chargemaster"rates, a list of costs for services the hospital maintains tonegotiate with public and private health insurers for all servicesprovided.

But patients without insurance don't benefit from negotiatedrates. In Limberg's case, he received a $2,062 bill for his ERvisit, an amount the lawsuit contends is "grossly excessive,unfair and unconscionable for the services provided."

Hospital emergency rooms are barred by federal law from discussingtheir charges or asking patients about their ability to pay,Richard said. Charges are universal, but rates are negotiated, hesaid.

Patients, even those with insurance, can apply for financialassistance. If they are able to demonstrate financial need, theycan have part or all of their bill waived.Sanford provided $323 million in charity care, including $83million in Fargo, Richard said. "So it's a big number."

"You're asking judges and juries to decide a charge for each andevery patient," Morrison said, referring to the wave of class-action lawsuits against hospitals. "That doesn't make sense."

Hospitals usually settle cases like those brought by Limberg, saidhis attorney, Kramer.

"The hospitals don't want to take these losing cases to trialthey're certain to lose," he said, adding that he has beensuccessful in overcoming motions to dismiss cases. He did not sayhow much money he has recovered for his clients.

For the past six or seven years, Kramer said, "I've worked onnothing but these cases."

SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline---------------------------------------------------Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant UnitedStates Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complainthas been filed in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California on behalf of all persons or entities thatpurchased the common stock of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("SLW" or the"Company") (NYSE: SLW) between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015,inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain ofits officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of SLW during the Class Period, and wishto discuss this action or have any questions concerning thisnotice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/silver-wheaton-corp-slw.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade materially false and misleading statements, and omittedmaterially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operationsand prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that thedefendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) SLW'sfinancial statements contained errors concerning income tax owedfrom the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) theCompany lacked adequate controls over its financial reporting; and(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financialstatements were materially false and misleading at all relevanttimes. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleadingstatements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflatedprices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on July 6, 2015, the Company issued apress release, announcing, among other things, that the CanadaRevenue Agency is taking the position that the transfer pricingprovisions of the Income Tax Act (Canada) relating to incomeearned by foreign subsidiaries outside of Canada should be appliedsuch that SLW's taxable income should be increased approximately$567 million for the period between 2005 and 2010.

On this news, shares in CorMedix dropped over 11%, closing at$15.46 per share on July 7, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than September 8, 2015. A lead plaintiff is arepresentative party acting on behalf of other class members indirecting the litigation. In order to be appointed leadplaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claimis typical of the claims of other class members, and that theclass member will adequately represent the class. Your ability toshare in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decisionwhether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of theproposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiffthrough counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing andremain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in thismatter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and GardenCity, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivativeand direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporategovernance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciaryduty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and instate and federal courts throughout the United States.

TD BANK: Settles Suit for $20MM in Quality Investments Case-----------------------------------------------------------Donna Horowtz, writing for The Street, reported that TD Bank hasagreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $20 million withEuropean investors who lost more than $223 million in Dutch lifesettlement company Quality Investments.

The bank signed an agreement to settle the suit, which is expectedto get preliminary court approval in a few weeks, according to theplaintiffs' attorney. A notice of the settlement was filed, July16, with the U.S. District Court in Miami.

In their February 2014 lawsuit, five investors accused the bank ofaiding a Ponzi scheme that allegedly bilked more than 1,000investors in fractional interests in life settlements.

"I think it's an excellent settlement, particularly in light ofhow challenging these cases are, and we look forward to continuingto work to recover more funds for these investors," said DavidBuckner, an attorney with the Grossman Roth law firm in Miami."Our argument was that the bank had sufficient knowledge to beheld liable here."

TD Bank spokeswoman Kate Toy said in an e-mail that the bank waspleased that the matter was close to resolution. TD Bank, withexecutive offices in Cherry Hill, N.J., and a principal place ofbusiness in Portland, Maine, is a unit of Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Plaintiffs say class members lost more than $223 million due tonumerous breaches of fiduciary duty, acts of legal malpractice,negligent acts and aiding and abetting such violations and othermisconduct.

Four of the plaintiffs are individuals who live in the Netherlandsand say they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in thescheme: Francois Robert Gevaerts, Paul Christian HolsteinGevaerts, Alexander Casper Holstein Gevaerts and Pieter Schaffels.The fifth plaintiff is Schaffels Beheer, a Dutch company, whichsimilarly invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in QualityInvestments.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants sought investors to buyinterests in life settlement policies that were put in Floridatrusts formed and managed by Peck. Peck, an attorney who wasacting as the trustee for the investment, was disbarred inDecember, according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

Each investment sold at Laan's direction through QualityInvestments was a beneficial interest in a trust formed to holdand maintain a policy.

THORATEC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Proposed St. Jude Merger----------------------------------------------------------------Timothy Larkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Thoratec Corporation, et al., Case No. RG15780585(Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all thestockholders of Thoratec Corporation to enjoin the proposedacquisition of the publicly owned shares of Thoratec by St. JudeMedical, Inc. through a flawed process and for an inadequateconsideration.

The lawsuit was brought by two shoppers who purchased items at theretailer with a price tag showing a "compare at" price that wassignificantly higher than the sale price.

Plaintiffs, Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman said they thought'compare at' meant that was the price "they would expect to payfor those same items at other retailers in their general area."

According to T.J. Maxx, the 'compare at' price is "buying staff'sestimate of the regular, retail price at which a comparable itemin finer catalogs, specialty or department stores may have beensold."

The retailer posts this on its website and invites consumers to dotheir "own comparison shopping" to see the value of theirpurchases.

The lawsuit says T.J. Maxx's 'compare at' policy is not explainedon the actual price tags or in the price advertising and therefore"they are not true, bona fide comparative prices." It says theretailer "tricks shoppers into thinking they are saving a specificamount" on their purchases.

The suit, Chester et al. v. The TJX Cos. Inc., charges T.J. Maxxwith "unfair business practices, fraudulent business practices,unlawful business practices, false advertising, and with violatingCalifornia's Consumer Legal Remedies Act." Details of the lawsuitwere published on the website, Top Class Actions.

T.J. Maxx issued a statement to the Huffington Post in itsdefense:

"We tell our customers what we mean by 'compare at' prices,both through signage in our stores as well as language on our T.J.Maxx website. Transparency is important to us and integrity isingrained in our culture. Beyond that, we do not comment onpending litigation."

There are some 25 T.J. Maxx stores in the Bay Area.

TOSHIBA CORP: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline--------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredsecurities of Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba") (OTC: TOSYY & TOSBF)between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit hasbeen commenced in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquiredToshiba shares between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, your rightsmay be affected by this action. To get more information go to:

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.comor by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that Toshiba misled investors regarding thetotal amounts of costs for certain infrastructure projects,thereby manipulating the profits and losses for these projects, aswell as misleading investors regarding the timing in which suchcontract losses and provisions for contract losses were recorded.

On May 8, 2015, the Company announced it is withdrawing itsearnings forecasts and will not pay a year-end dividend afterfinding improper accounting on infrastructure projects. TheCompany announced that an independent committee has been formed toinvestigate the accounting problems.

If you suffered a loss in Toshiba you have until August 3, 2015 torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your abilityto share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a leadplaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys haveextensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involvingfinancial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation insecurities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Priorresults do not guarantee similar outcomes.

TOSHIBA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Inventors Suit-----------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard LLP investors had until August 3, 2015, to filea motion for lead plaintiff in a class action against ToshibaCorporation ("Toshiba" or the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY and TOSBF)pending in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California. The action alleges claims on behalf ofpurchasers (the "Class") of Toshiba securities during the periodof May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securitieslaws by making materially false and misleading statements andomissions regarding Toshiba's financial performance, businessprospects, and true financial condition.

On May 8, 2015, Toshiba disclosed that, in the course of aninvestigation, a Special Investigation Committee had identifiedseveral instances in which the Company used a percentage-of-completion method of accounting, wherein contract costs forcertain infrastructure projects were undervalued and contractlosses (including provisions for contract loss) were recorded inan untimely manner. Further, the Company announced that a newcommittee -- the Independent Investigation Committee, consistingof legal and accounting experts -- would be taking over theinvestigation.

On this news, Toshiba's stock price fell $5.75 per share, or over23% over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11,2015.

On July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka, as well as eight of16 board members, resigned following the publication of theIndependent Investigation Committee's report, which revealed thatthe three most recent CEOs played active roles in inflatingToshiba's earnings by $1.22 billion over the last seven years.Moreover, they "deliberately provided insufficient explanations toauditors, with the intention of carrying out a systematic cover-up." Tanaka assumed responsibility for the accounting scandal.Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class memberswho purchased shares of Toshiba during the Class Period. If youpurchased Toshiba securities as described above, and lost over$100,000 (whether realized losses or unrealized losses on stockyou still hold) on the transactions, you may wish to join in thisaction to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you mustmeet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and fileappropriate papers no later than August 3, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalfof other class members in directing the litigation. In order to beappointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the classmember's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,and that the class member will adequately represent the class.Under certain circumstances, one or more class members maytogether serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in anyrecovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or notto serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein LiebhardLLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel inthis action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Toshibashareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, pleasecontact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 orseidman@bernlieb.com.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the courtfor the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognizedBernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the topplaintiffs' firms in the country.

TOSHIBA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors' Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that asecurities class action has been filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California on behalf ofthose who purchased shares of Toshiba Corporation. ("Toshiba" orthe "Company") (OTC: TOSYY, TOSBF), during the period between May8, 2012 and May 7, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsissued materially false and misleading statements about theCompany's business, future revenues, operating results andfinancial prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/ ormisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the companymisled investors regarding the total amounts of costs for certaininfrastructure projects; thereby manipulating the profits andlosses for these infrastructure projects as well as misguidinginvestors regarding the timing in which such contract losses andprovisions for contract losses were recorded; as a result,Toshiba's financial statements were materially false andmisleading at all relevant times.

On April 3, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing theestablishment of a special investigation committee concerning theaccounting of certain infrastructure projects.

On this adverse news, shares of TOSYY fell $1.23 per share, orover 4%, from its previous closing price to close at $24.56 pershare on April 6, 2015, and shares of TOSBF fell $0.16 per shareor over 3% from its previous closing price to close at $4.13 pershare on April 6, 2015.

On May 8, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing theestablishment of an independent investigation committee concerningthe accounting of certain infrastructure projects and the possiblerevision of earnings for prior years.

On May 10, 2015, BARRON'S ASIA published a report which statedthat Toshiba "[f]ell 16.7% on Tokyo after the electronics makerlaunched an accounting probe into its infrastructure businessdivision and withdrew its 2014 earnings forecast. Toshiba alsosaid it would not pay dividend."

Until now, the accounting investigation has focused on powersystems, social infrastructure and community solution units inJapan and overseas. "Several construction projects haveunderstated costs," according to a spokesperson from Toshiba."Toshiba earned about 11% of its operating income from its powerand social infrastructure business in 2013."

On this news, shares of TOSYY fell $5.75 per share, or over 23%,over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11,2015 and shares of TOSBF fell $0.88 per share or over 22% over thenext two days to close at $3.09 per share on May 11, 2015.

Then on July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka and eight otherexecutives resigned, and acknowledged a cover up that began in2008. Those resigning took responsibility for doctored books thatinflated profits by $1.2 billion over several years.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wishto review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or haveany questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or hisInvestor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via emailinfo@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged toinclude their mailing address and telephone number. If yousuffered a loss in Toshiba you have until August 3, 2015 torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigationboutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit oflitigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition torepresenting institutions and other investor plaintiffs in classaction security litigation, the firm's expertise includes generalcorporate and commercial litigation, as well as securitiesarbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do notguarantee similar outcomes.

UBER: Faces $400-Mil. Class Suit in Ontario-------------------------------------------Daniel Tencer, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that onthe same day that Uber announced a major expansion of its UberXride service in Ontario, a Toronto-area cabbie has launched aclass-action lawsuit against the service, seeking $400 million indamages over lost income.

Lawyers for Dominik Konjevic, a licensed taxi driver inMississauga, say the claim is being made "on behalf of all taxicabowners, taxicab drivers, taxicab brokers, limousine owners,limousine drivers and limousine service companies licensed,permitted or authorized to operate in the Province of Ontario."

The lawsuit alleges that Uber and drivers for its UberX service"conspired to provide unlawful transport for compensation." Itsays Uber violated the section of the provincial Highway TrafficAct that forbids drivers from picking up passengers forcompensation without a licence.

In doing so, UberX "divert[ed] millions of dollars of revenue awayfrom licensed taxicab, limousine owners and drivers in Ontario andinjur[ed] their ongoing legitimate business interests," law firmSutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement.

Typically, a court has to certify a class-action lawsuit beforeeligible members of the public -- in this case taxi and limousinedrivers -- are allowed to join.

Uber on announced it is expanding its UberX ride service to fourmore cities in Ontario -- Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo andLondon.

Residents of these cities will be able to book Uber cars as of2:00 p.m., and the company has a promotion running -- up to fourfree rides between now.

Relations between Uber, the city and taxi drivers have beenincreasingly tense, with some cab drivers threatening to shut downToronto, in an echo of the Uber riots in Paris, if the citydoesn't crack down on the ride service.

The city of Toronto recently took Uber to court, seeking aninjunction preventing the service from operating, arguing itviolates Ontario traffic laws. The court denied the city'srequest, indicating it is a matter for legislators.

One city councillor, former Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, issued astatement warning Pan Am Games visitors to the city that theycould be fined up to $20,000 for using UberX.

But city officials indicated that fines rarely reach those levels,and Uber has said it knows of no riders who have been charged withviolating traffic laws. It argues the Highway Traffic Act appliesonly to vehicle drivers, not passengers.

On July 21, 2015, UCLA became a defendant in a class actionlawsuit after plaintiff Michael Allen filed the action inCalifornia federal court. The complaint alleges a number ofviolations related to the breach, including violation ofCalifornia's Confidential Medical Information Act.

According to its press release, UCLA determined on May 1, 2015,that the attackers had accessed UCLA's network. Interestingly,UCLA notes that it had detected suspicious activity on its networkin October of 2014, at which time it began working with the FBI toinvestigate the breach. At the time, UCLA did not believe that theattackers had access to the part of its network that containedpersonal information. However, as of May 5, 2015, UCLA concludedthat the hackers may have had access to personal information asfar back as September of 2014. UCLA has made identity protectionand credit monitoring services available to potentially impactedindividuals.

The class action claims that the breach was a direct result ofUCLA's failure to take "basic steps" to safeguard the sensitiveinformation. One of these "basic steps", the plaintiff argues, isthe encryption of UCLA's patient information.

However, it is unclear at this point the role that encryptionwould have played in preventing such an attack. If the hackersobtained access to UCLA's internal network, it is possible thatthe data would have been accessible regardless of whether it wasencrypted. As discussed in the MIT Technology Review followingAnthem's massive breach, "encryption is just one part of thearsenal that organizations need to deploy to secure sensitivedata. Encryption is great for securing data in transit and atrest, but if the credentials and keys are compromised it doeslittle to protect the data."

The UCLA breach illustrates another area of concern: the abilityof entities to effectively investigate potential breaches. WhileAnthem's breach was an order of magnitude greater in terms of thenumber of individuals affected, the company publicly disclosed itsbreach less than one week after it detected the intrusion. UCLA'sinvestigation spanned a number of months, giving the hackers moretime to nefariously use the information before countermeasurescould be taken. This point was not lost on the plaintiff in theclass action, with the complaint describing UCLA's response as"dilatory" and accusing the system of delaying its notification toindividual consumers. For its part, a UCLA representative told CNNthat "the process of addressing the technological issuessurrounding this incident and the logistics of identifying andnotifying the potentially affected individuals was time-consuming."

Regardless of how the class action suit is resolved in court, theUCLA breach is further evidence of the significant headwindsfacing the health care sector, both in preventing and respondingto data breaches.

URANIUM ENERGY: August 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline-----------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class actionlawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern Districtof Texas on behalf of investors who purchased Uranium Energy Corp.(NYSE:UEC) securities between October 14, 2014 and June 17, 2015.

The complaint alleges that Uranium Energy achieved anunsustainable valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet failedto disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory filings.

If you suffered a loss in Uranium Energy you have until August 28,2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contactVincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephoneat 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/UEC-Info-Request-Form-820.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has representedinvestors in securities litigations involving financial fraud andviolations of shareholder rights.

The recall includes Viking Professional, Designer and Custom Paneldishwashers. The recalled dishwashers are 24 inches wide and weresold in various colours. The name Viking appears on the controlpanel at the top of the door.

The following model numbers and manufacture dates are included inthis recall:

The model and serial number are located on the identificationplate mounted on the inside on the left side of the dishwasherdoor opening. The first six numbers in the serial number are themanufacture date in MMDDYY format, e.g., serial number 052610 wasmanufactured on May 26, 2010.

An electrical component in the dishwasher can overheat, posing afire hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidentsor injuries related to the use these products.

Viking Range, LLC has received 8 reports of dishwashersoverheating in Canada that were not subject to the originalrecall, including 2 fires resulting in property damage. VikingRange, LLC has received 128 reports in the United States,including 19 reports of fire resulting in property damageinvolving dishwashers not subject to the original recall.

Approximately 1300 units were sold in Canada, of which 300 wereincluded in the previous recall. Approximately 17,300 units weresold in the United States, of which 2000 were involved in theprevious recall.

Affected products were sold July 2008 to March 2012 in Canada andthe United States.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Viking Range LLC Greenwood Mississippi UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashersand contact Viking Range, LLC for a free in home repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Viking toll-free at 1-800-241-7239 from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Fridayor visit the firm's website click on Safety Recall Information atthe bottom right of the home page.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission'swebsite.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibitsrecalled products from being redistributed, sold or even givenaway in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any healthor safety incidents related to the use of this product or anyother consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the ConsumerProduct Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on ProductRecalls website. You can visit this site for more information onother international consumer product recalls.

On certain vehicles equipped with seven seats, the InflatableCurtain (IC) air bag may not deploy as intended for third rowpassengers. In the event of a collision that warrants a deploymentof the Inflatable Curtain, the interior trim panel on the D-pillar(s) could obstruct the IC from inflating fully. If this wereto occur, it could increase the risk of injury to third row seatoccupant(s) in certain types of crashes. Correction: To bedetermined.

WASHINGTON: D.C. Judge Allows Some Forfeiture Claims to Proceed---------------------------------------------------------------Happy Carlock, writing for LegalTimes, reported that a federaljudge will allow a challenge to Washington's seizure andforfeiture law to move forward as lawsuits mount across thecountry over the constitutionality of the taking of propertywithout criminal charges.

Judge Cooper dismissed some claims in a putative class action by22 residents who alleged District officials improperly seized andretained cars or money. The judge, however, kept alive certainclaims that address the secrecy of proceedings and the timelyability to challenge a seizure.

Judge Cooper ruled the D.C. government must give owners of seizedvehicles "a prompt opportunity" to challenge the reasonableness ofa seizure of a vehicle. The court concluded due process doesn'trequire a preliminary hearing after the government seizes cash.Cooper said the government has a greater interest in retainingseized money than cars "because there are fewer means to prevent aclaimant from dissipating the value of cash by simply spending itbefore the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings."

The judge also found that in some of the plaintiffs' cases, theMetropolitan Police Department (MPD) did not issue notices in amanner "reasonably calculated to reach claimants." And Cooper saidsome plaintiffs had alleged sufficient allegations to contest"secret" forfeiture proceedings.

"I think [the D.C. District Court's opinion] is very significantbecause it follows the trend of the other circuits that say if thegovernment takes your car, they have to give you a hearing,"William Claiborne, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the NLJ on.

A spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General declinedto comment on the ruling.

In the opinion, Cooper cites a Washington Post investigation,"Stop and Seize," to highlight the national debate over civilasset forfeiture. Numerous lawsuits are pending around thecountry. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit againstArizona's asset forfeiture laws.

Critics argue that police are using search and seizure laws togenerate revenue for their departments at the expense of innocentproperty owners. Proponents contend the seizure of money andproperty disrupts and deters criminal activity.

Kimberly Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Washington case, filedsuit in 2013 after police seized her car and required her to pay$250 to prevent forfeiture. Brown said she had lent her car to herfriend, who used it to transport marijuana, unbeknownst to Brown,according to court records.

Brown's complaint alleges the District did not allow her anopportunity to challenge the seizure or provide a promptpostseizure hearing. "In fact the District's forfeiture statutedoes not provide for such a hearing or notice of such a hearingnor does the District provide adequate notice and such hearingsinformally," according to the lawsuit.

"The District's civil forfeiture scheme has a certain built-inunfairness to citizens because the District and the MPD havefinancial incentives to seize property and the District hasdelegated the authority to make ex parte determinations aboutwhether seizures are legal to an MPD property clerk whosedeterminations in favor of the District financially benefit hisdepartment and the District," the lawsuit said.

The D.C. Council adopted changes to the city's asset forfeiturestatute in February. The allegations in Brown's case relate to theold version of the law.

"This lawsuit and other lawsuits made City Council aware ofproblems, so City Council changed the law so that when the policetake your car, you have a right to go before a judge," Claibornesaid.

* Workplace Discrimination Claims to Increase, Survey Says----------------------------------------------------------Natalie Kitroeff, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported thatU.S. employers are anticipating a rise in workplace discriminationclaims based on their own hiring policies, a survey releasedshows.

In the study, employment law firm Littler Mendelson asked 500representatives of companies with both small and large marketcapitalizations about their deepest legal anxieties. Fifty-sevenpercent said they expected an increase in discrimination claimsbecause of their interest in an applicant's criminal history --the companies' top concern when asked about the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission's enforcement efforts.

A growing number of states have adopted laws that preventemployers from asking on job applications whether applicants havea criminal record. Thirty percent of the employers surveyed byLittler Mendelson said they had removed such questions from theirapplications. An additional 40 percent said they are hiringcontractors to do background checks for them. The report suggestedthat this strategy may be risky because people are filing agrowing number of lawsuits tied to third-party investigations ofcriminal history and seeking class action status. "This trend willnot slow down soon," the report said.

Still, respondents were less likely than to say that they expectan increase in over discrimination claims.

The employers' second-biggest concern is potential claims overequal pay and the treatment of workers based on their sexuality,age, and disabilities. Employers seemed especially confused as tohow to run employee wellness programs without getting into troublefor discriminating against disabled people.

The programs generally offer incentives to employees who hithealth or fitness benchmarks and are encouraged by the AffordableCare Act. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionsued several companies for programs that it charged were unfair toworkers with disabilities. Overall, companies said they werehaving fewer problems with the new health-care law than inprevious years; one-third said they were anxious aboutimplementing Obamacare, down from 64 percent in 2012.

The timing of the survey may have played a role in employers'concerns. The poll was conducted in April and May, when theSupreme Court hadn't yet ruled in favor of gay marriage. Forty-seven percent of companies said they already had rules protectinglesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers, but 20 percentsaid they were either waiting on the court's decision to expandtheir regulations or had no policies in place.

Getting nailed by the National Labor Relations Board for theworking conditions of subcontractors is a further concern. Asfederal and state authorities continue to scrutinize companydecisions as to who counts as an employee, most employers surveyedsaid they had taken some action to mitigate potential legalchallenges, such as auditing independent contractors. Thirtypercent said they had made no changes to policies.

A growing share of C-suite executives and human resourcesprofessionals -- 17 percent -- said they expected to "hireaggressively". Compared with previous years, companies were alsoless likely to say they had unhappy employees staying in theirjobs because there were no alternatives, or that people were stuckin jobs that didn't make good use of their skills.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.